{"data":{"filter_options":{"titles":[{"name":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office","value":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office"},{"name":"Partner","value":"Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono","value":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer"},{"name":"Partner / General Counsel","value":"Partner / General Counsel"},{"name":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops","value":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops"},{"name":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice","value":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice"},{"name":"K\u0026S Talent Partner","value":"K\u0026S Talent Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer"},{"name":"Chairman","value":"Chairman"},{"name":"Senior Counsel","value":"Senior Counsel"},{"name":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations","value":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations"},{"name":"Counsel","value":"Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Associate","value":"Senior Associate"},{"name":"Associate","value":"Associate"},{"name":"Senior Attorney","value":"Senior Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Lawyer","value":"Senior Lawyer"},{"name":"Attorney","value":"Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor","value":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor"},{"name":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions","value":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions"},{"name":"Senior Government Relations Advisor","value":"Senior Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Associate General Counsel","value":"Associate General Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Advisor","value":"Senior Advisor"},{"name":"Patent Agent","value":"Patent Agent"},{"name":"Consultant","value":"Consultant"},{"name":"Government Relations Advisor","value":"Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration","value":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration"},{"name":"Chief Financial Officer","value":"Chief Financial Officer"},{"name":"Chief Information Officer","value":"Chief Information Officer"},{"name":"Chief Revenue Officer","value":"Chief Revenue Officer"},{"name":"Chief Recruiting Officer","value":"Chief Recruiting Officer"},{"name":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer","value":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer"},{"name":"Chief Marketing Officer","value":"Chief Marketing Officer"},{"name":"Tax Consultant","value":"Tax Consultant"},{"name":"Director of Community Affairs","value":"Director of Community Affairs"},{"name":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations","value":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations"},{"name":"Senior Office Manager","value":"Senior Office Manager"},{"name":"Director of Operations","value":"Director of Operations"},{"name":"Pro Bono Deputy","value":"Pro Bono Deputy"},{"name":"Director of Office Operations","value":"Director of Office Operations"},{"name":"Director of Operations Europe","value":"Director of Operations Europe"},{"name":"Law Clerk","value":"Law Clerk"},{"name":"Deputy General Counsel","value":"Deputy General Counsel"}],"schools":[{"name":"(Commercial Law), in front of Monash University, Australia","value":3045},{"name":"Aberystwyth University","value":3004},{"name":"Albany Law School","value":2118},{"name":"American University Washington College of Law","value":3042},{"name":"American University, Washington College of Law","value":3024},{"name":"Appalachian School of Law","value":2891},{"name":"Ateneo de Manila University","value":2914},{"name":"Ave Maria School of Law","value":2892},{"name":"Baylor University School of Law","value":181},{"name":"Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law","value":2619},{"name":"Binghamton University","value":3002},{"name":"Boston College Law School","value":245},{"name":"Boston University School of Law","value":247},{"name":"BPP Law School Leeds","value":2642},{"name":"BPP Law School London","value":2782},{"name":"BPP University","value":2984},{"name":"Brooklyn Law School","value":2705},{"name":"Cairo University, Law School","value":2962},{"name":"California Western School of Law","value":315},{"name":"Capital University Law School","value":327},{"name":"Case Western Reserve University School of Law","value":345},{"name":"Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law","value":2235},{"name":"Chapman University School of Law","value":377},{"name":"Charleston School of Law","value":2910},{"name":"City Law School, London","value":2998},{"name":"City Law School","value":2857},{"name":"Clark University","value":3006},{"name":"Cleveland-Marshall College of Law","value":426},{"name":"Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs","value":3008},{"name":"Columbia University School of Law","value":485},{"name":"Columbia University","value":3126},{"name":"Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America","value":3010},{"name":"Columbus School of Law","value":350},{"name":"Concord Law School of Kaplan University","value":1026},{"name":"Cornell Law School","value":512},{"name":"Creighton University School of Law","value":518},{"name":"Creighton University","value":3025},{"name":"Cumberland School of Law","value":1759},{"name":"CUNY School of Law","value":2893},{"name":"David A. Clarke School of Law","value":2399},{"name":"Deakin University School of Law","value":2907},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":565},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":3060},{"name":"Dickinson School of Law","value":2719},{"name":"Drake University Law School","value":609},{"name":"Duke University School of Law","value":613},{"name":"Duquesne University School of Law","value":614},{"name":"Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law","value":173},{"name":"Edinburgh Law School","value":3160},{"name":"Emory University School of Law","value":659},{"name":"ESADE Business and Law School – Universidad Ramon Llull","value":3215},{"name":"Fachseminare von Fürstenberg","value":2918},{"name":"Faculté Libre de Droit, Université Catholique de Lille","value":3055},{"name":"Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb","value":2983},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":2944},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":3039},{"name":"Federal University of Rio de Janeiro","value":3022},{"name":"Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul School of Law (Brazil)","value":3062},{"name":"Florida A\u0026M University College of Law","value":699},{"name":"Florida Coastal School of Law","value":2894},{"name":"Florida International College of Law","value":707},{"name":"Florida State University College of Law","value":720},{"name":"Fordham University School of Law","value":722},{"name":"Franklin Pierce Law Center","value":734},{"name":"Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena","value":3015},{"name":"George Mason University School of Law","value":752},{"name":"George Washington University Law School","value":753},{"name":"Georgetown University Law Center","value":755},{"name":"Georgia State University College of Law","value":761},{"name":"Ghent Law School","value":2793},{"name":"Golden Gate University School of Law","value":770},{"name":"Gonzaga University School of Law","value":772},{"name":"Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva","value":2997},{"name":"Hamline University School of Law","value":811},{"name":"Harvard Law School","value":824},{"name":"Hebrew University of Jerusalem Faculty of Law","value":2994},{"name":"Hofstra University School of Law","value":858},{"name":"Howard University School of Law","value":872},{"name":"Huazhong University of Science and Technology","value":3016},{"name":"Humboldt University of Berlin","value":3012},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":2711},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":890},{"name":"International Association of Privacy Professionals","value":3009},{"name":"J. Reuben Clark Law School","value":262},{"name":"Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center","value":2084},{"name":"James Cook University of North Queensland","value":3034},{"name":"Jean Moulin University Lyon 3, France","value":2938},{"name":"Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health","value":2992},{"name":"Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen Rechtswissenschaft (Germany)","value":3063},{"name":"Kansas City School of Law","value":2247},{"name":"Keio University","value":2968},{"name":"Kent College of Law","value":883},{"name":"Kline School of Law","value":611},{"name":"KU Leuven","value":3007},{"name":"Levin College of Law","value":2189},{"name":"Lewis and Clark Law School","value":1089},{"name":"Liberty University School of Law","value":1094},{"name":"Lincoln College of Law","value":2253},{"name":"LL.M. in International Crime and Justice UNICRI","value":2937},{"name":"Loyola Law School","value":2895},{"name":"Loyola University Chicago School of Law","value":1135},{"name":"Loyola University New Orleans College of Law","value":1136},{"name":"Marquette University Law School","value":1176},{"name":"McGeorge School of Law","value":2402},{"name":"McGill University","value":2659},{"name":"Melbourne Law School","value":2899},{"name":"Mercer University Walter F. George School of Law","value":1221},{"name":"Mexico Autonomous Institute of Technology","value":2996},{"name":"Michael E. Moritz College of Law","value":2728},{"name":"Michigan State University College of Law","value":1245},{"name":"Mississippi College School of Law","value":1285},{"name":"Moscow State University","value":2815},{"name":"National and Kapodistrian University of Athens","value":3032},{"name":"National Law University Jodhpur","value":3020},{"name":"National University of Singapore, Faculty of Law","value":2662},{"name":"New England School of Law","value":2886},{"name":"New York Law School","value":1403},{"name":"New York University School of Law","value":1406},{"name":"Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law","value":323},{"name":"North Carolina Central University School of Law","value":1417},{"name":"Northeastern University School of Law","value":1430},{"name":"Northern Illinois University College of Law","value":1432},{"name":"Northwestern Pritzker School of Law","value":1451},{"name":"Notre Dame Law School","value":2278},{"name":"Ohio Northern University Law School","value":3036},{"name":"Oklahoma City University School of Law","value":1487},{"name":"Osgoode Hall Law School","value":3124},{"name":"Pace University School of Law","value":1516},{"name":"Panteion University","value":3033},{"name":"Paul M. Hebert Law Center","value":2713},{"name":"Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson School of Law","value":1562},{"name":"Pepperdine University School of Law","value":1570},{"name":"Pettit College of Law","value":1473},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile","value":3203},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru","value":3011},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Javeriana","value":3013},{"name":"Pontificia Universidade Catolica de Sao Paulo","value":3095},{"name":"Prince Sultan University College of Law","value":3167},{"name":"Queens College, Cambridge","value":3003},{"name":"Quinnipiac University School of Law","value":1626},{"name":"Ralph R. Papitto School of Law","value":1686},{"name":"Regent University School of Law","value":1649},{"name":"Rice University","value":3043},{"name":"Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg","value":3049},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law-Newark","value":1699},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law","value":1697},{"name":"S.J. Quinney College of Law","value":2408},{"name":"Saint Louis University School of Law","value":1732},{"name":"Salmon P. Chase College of Law","value":1433},{"name":"Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law","value":103},{"name":"Santa Clara University School of Law","value":1771},{"name":"Seattle University School of Law","value":1787},{"name":"Seton Hall University School of Law","value":1790},{"name":"Shepard Broad Law Center","value":1460},{"name":"South Texas College of Law","value":2721},{"name":"Southern Illinois University School of Law","value":1849},{"name":"Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law","value":1852},{"name":"Southern University Law Center","value":1857},{"name":"Southwestern Law School","value":1876},{"name":"St. John's University School of Law","value":2724},{"name":"St. Mary's University School of Law","value":1896},{"name":"St. Thomas University School of Law","value":1746},{"name":"Stanford Law School","value":1904},{"name":"Stetson University College of Law","value":1910},{"name":"Sturm College of Law","value":2184},{"name":"Suffolk University Law School","value":1921},{"name":"Syracuse University College of Law","value":1956},{"name":"Temple University Beasley School of Law","value":1974},{"name":"Texas A\u0026M School of Law","value":1980},{"name":"Texas Tech University School of Law","value":1994},{"name":"Texas Wesleyan University School of Law","value":1996},{"name":"The College of Law Australia","value":3091},{"name":"The College of Law, London","value":2935},{"name":"The John Marshall Law School","value":2034},{"name":"The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School","value":2896},{"name":"The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law","value":2990},{"name":"The University of Akron School of Law","value":2143},{"name":"The University of Alabama School of Law","value":2045},{"name":"The University of Birmingham, U.K.","value":2796},{"name":"The University of Iowa College of Law","value":2206},{"name":"The University of Texas School of Law","value":2055},{"name":"The University of Tulsa College of Law","value":2407},{"name":"Thomas Jefferson School of Law","value":685},{"name":"Thomas M. Cooley Law School","value":2729},{"name":"Thurgood Marshall School of Law","value":1992},{"name":"Tianjin University of Commerce","value":2995},{"name":"Tulane University Law School","value":2113},{"name":"UC Davis School of Law","value":2160},{"name":"UCLA School of Law","value":2162},{"name":"Universidad Católica de Honduras","value":2916},{"name":"Universidad Francisco Marroquin","value":3090},{"name":"Universidad Panamericana","value":2904},{"name":"Universidad Torcuato di Tella","value":3035},{"name":"Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Direito","value":3028},{"name":"Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie","value":2977},{"name":"Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi","value":3135},{"name":"University at Buffalo Law School","value":1928},{"name":"University College Dublin Law School","value":2900},{"name":"University of Alberta Faculty of Law","value":3088},{"name":"University of Amsterdam","value":2980},{"name":"University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law","value":2149},{"name":"University of Arkansas School of Law","value":2154},{"name":"University of Baltimore School of Law","value":2156},{"name":"University of California College of the Law","value":3196},{"name":"University of California Hastings College of Law","value":2158},{"name":"University of California Irvine School of Law","value":2161},{"name":"University of California, Berkeley, School of Law","value":2159},{"name":"University of California, Davis","value":3019},{"name":"University of Cambridge, U.K","value":2991},{"name":"University of Canterbury","value":2981},{"name":"University of Central Florida","value":3027},{"name":"University of Chester Law School","value":3005},{"name":"University of Chicago Law School","value":2174},{"name":"University of Chicago","value":3038},{"name":"University of Cincinnati College of Law","value":2175},{"name":"University of Colorado School of Law","value":2177},{"name":"University of Connecticut School of Law","value":2180},{"name":"University of Dayton School of Law","value":2182},{"name":"University of Detroit Mercy School of Law","value":2185},{"name":"University of East Anglia","value":3000},{"name":"University of Florida, Levin College of Law","value":3188},{"name":"University of Georgia School of Law","value":2190},{"name":"University of Houston Law Center","value":2197},{"name":"University of Hull","value":3040},{"name":"University of Idaho College of Law","value":2201},{"name":"University of Illinois College of Law","value":2204},{"name":"University of Kansas School of Law","value":2208},{"name":"University of Kentucky College of Law","value":2210},{"name":"University of La Verne College of Law","value":2211},{"name":"University of Law, London","value":2999},{"name":"University of Lethbridge","value":3030},{"name":"University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law","value":2214},{"name":"University of Maine School of Law","value":2391},{"name":"University of Maryland School of Law","value":2224},{"name":"University of Miami School of Law","value":2236},{"name":"University of Michigan Law School","value":2237},{"name":"University of Minnesota Law School","value":2243},{"name":"University of Mississippi School of Law","value":2244},{"name":"University of Missouri School of Law","value":2246},{"name":"University of Montana School of Law","value":2048},{"name":"University of Nebraska College of Law","value":2744},{"name":"University of New Mexico School of Law","value":2262},{"name":"University of North Carolina School of Law","value":2266},{"name":"University of North Dakota School of Law","value":2271},{"name":"University of Oklahoma Law Center","value":2747},{"name":"University of Oregon School of Law","value":2281},{"name":"University of Pennsylvania Law School","value":2282},{"name":"University of Pittsburgh School of Law","value":2354},{"name":"University of Richmond School of Law","value":2370},{"name":"University of San Diego School of Law","value":2377},{"name":"University of San Francisco School of Law","value":2378},{"name":"University of South Carolina School of Law","value":2750},{"name":"University of South Dakota School of Law","value":2387},{"name":"University of Southern California Gould School of Law","value":3051},{"name":"University of St. Thomas School of Law","value":2751},{"name":"University of Sydney Law School","value":3031},{"name":"University of Tennessee College of Law","value":2051},{"name":"University of the West of England, Bristol","value":3001},{"name":"University of Toledo College of Law","value":2406},{"name":"University of Toronto","value":2912},{"name":"University of Utah","value":3026},{"name":"University of Virginia School of Law","value":2410},{"name":"University of Washington School of Law","value":2412},{"name":"University of Wisconsin Law School","value":2419},{"name":"University of Wyoming College of Law","value":2429},{"name":"University of Zürich","value":3037},{"name":"University Paris Dauphine","value":2976},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":2975},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":3052},{"name":"USC Gould School of Law","value":2389},{"name":"Utrecht University","value":3085},{"name":"Valparaiso University School of Law","value":2441},{"name":"Vanderbilt University School of Law","value":2442},{"name":"Vermont Law School","value":2451},{"name":"Villanova University School of Law","value":2454},{"name":"Wake Forest University School of Law","value":2471},{"name":"Washburn University School of Law","value":2482},{"name":"Washington and Lee University School of Law","value":2484},{"name":"Washington College of Law","value":61},{"name":"Washington University in St. Louis School of Law","value":2489},{"name":"Wayne State University Law School","value":2493},{"name":"West Virginia University College of Law","value":2517},{"name":"Western New England College School of Law","value":2528},{"name":"Western State College of Law","value":2897},{"name":"Wharton School of Business","value":3044},{"name":"Whittier Law School","value":2564},{"name":"Widener University Delaware Law School","value":2569},{"name":"Willamette University College of Law","value":2573},{"name":"William \u0026 Mary Law School","value":462},{"name":"William H. Bowen School of Law","value":2150},{"name":"William Mitchell College of Law","value":2758},{"name":"William S. Boyd School of Law","value":2256},{"name":"William S. Richardson School of Law","value":2195},{"name":"Wilmington University","value":2993},{"name":"Yale Law School","value":2605}],"offices":[{"name":"Abu Dhabi","value":13},{"name":"Atlanta","value":1},{"name":"Austin","value":12},{"name":"Brussels","value":23},{"name":"Charlotte","value":8},{"name":"Chicago","value":21},{"name":"Dallas","value":28},{"name":"Denver","value":22},{"name":"Dubai","value":6},{"name":"Frankfurt","value":9},{"name":"Geneva","value":15},{"name":"Houston","value":4},{"name":"London","value":5},{"name":"Los Angeles","value":19},{"name":"Miami","value":25},{"name":"New York","value":3},{"name":"Northern Virginia","value":24},{"name":"Paris","value":14},{"name":"Riyadh","value":27},{"name":"Sacramento","value":20},{"name":"San Francisco","value":10},{"name":"Silicon Valley","value":11},{"name":"Singapore","value":16},{"name":"Sydney","value":26},{"name":"Tokyo","value":18},{"name":"Washington, D.C.","value":2}],"capabilities":[{"name":"Corporate, Finance and Investments","value":"cg-1"},{"name":"Activist Defense","value":72},{"name":"Capital Markets","value":26},{"name":"Construction and Procurement","value":40},{"name":"Corporate Governance","value":27},{"name":"Emerging Companies and Venture Capital","value":80},{"name":"Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation","value":28},{"name":"Energy and Infrastructure Projects","value":35},{"name":"Financial Restructuring","value":10},{"name":"Fund Finance","value":134},{"name":"Global Human Capital and Compliance ","value":121},{"name":"Investment Funds and Asset Management","value":78},{"name":"Leveraged Finance","value":29},{"name":"Mergers and Acquisitions (M\u0026A)","value":32},{"name":"Middle East and Islamic Finance and Investment","value":31},{"name":"Private Equity","value":33},{"name":"Public Companies","value":126},{"name":"Real Estate","value":36},{"name":"Structured Finance and Securitization","value":82},{"name":"Tax","value":37},{"name":"Technology Transactions","value":115},{"name":"Government Matters","value":"cg-2"},{"name":"Antitrust","value":1},{"name":"Data, Privacy and Security","value":6},{"name":"Environmental, Health and Safety","value":71},{"name":"FDA and Life Sciences","value":21},{"name":"Government Advocacy and Public Policy","value":23},{"name":"Government Contracts","value":116},{"name":"Healthcare","value":24},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":135},{"name":"International Trade","value":25},{"name":"National Security and Corporate Espionage","value":110},{"name":"Securities Enforcement and Regulation","value":20},{"name":"Special Matters and Government Investigations","value":11},{"name":"Trial and Global Disputes","value":"cg-3"},{"name":"Antitrust ","value":129},{"name":"Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law","value":2},{"name":"Bankruptcy and Insolvency Litigation","value":38},{"name":"Class Action Defense","value":3},{"name":"Commercial Litigation","value":5},{"name":"Corporate and Securities Litigation","value":19},{"name":"E-Discovery","value":7},{"name":"Global Construction and Infrastructure Disputes","value":4},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":136},{"name":"Intellectual Property","value":13},{"name":"International Arbitration and Litigation","value":14},{"name":"Labor and Employment","value":15},{"name":"Product Liability","value":17},{"name":"Professional Liability","value":18},{"name":"Toxic \u0026 Environmental Torts","value":16},{"name":"Industries / Issues","value":"cg-4"},{"name":"Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning","value":133},{"name":"Automotive, Transportation and Mobility","value":106},{"name":"Buy American","value":124},{"name":"Crisis Management","value":111},{"name":"Doing Business in Latin America","value":132},{"name":"Energy Transition","value":131},{"name":"Energy","value":102},{"name":"Environmental Agenda","value":125},{"name":"Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)","value":127},{"name":"Financial Services","value":107},{"name":"Focus on Women's Health","value":112},{"name":"Food and Beverage","value":105},{"name":"Higher Education","value":109},{"name":"Life Sciences and Healthcare","value":103},{"name":"Russia/Ukraine","value":128},{"name":"Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs)","value":123},{"name":"Technology","value":118}]},"title_id":null,"school_id":null,"office_id":null,"capability_id":null,"extra_filter_id":null,"extra_filter_type":null,"q":"solar","starts_with":"S","per_page":12,"people":[{"match_score_text":"9.0","total_score":0,"last_name":"schlackman","first_name":"mark","middle_name":" ","nick_name":"mark","id":442869,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6178,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMark Schlackman represents clients in connection with a wide variety of complex corporate and commercial\u0026nbsp;transactions involving energy and infrastructure projects.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;As an industry-focused generalist, he has broad capabilities that allow him to guide his clients through all aspects of project development, project finance, mergers and acquisitions and associated corporate and commercial transactions.\u0026nbsp; He has particular expertise handling matters involving\u0026nbsp;renewable and conventional power\u0026nbsp;as well as midstream and downstream oil and gas assets.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMark has substantial experience handling matters involving large scale development projects at both the corporate and project level.\u0026nbsp; His capabilities extend across the entire value chain to include\u0026nbsp;project development, construction, finance, joint ventures, acquisitions, dispositions, power and commodities and many other matters involving energy and infrastructure assets.\u0026nbsp; Over the course of his career, he has counseled\u0026nbsp;industry leading developers, investors, lenders and other parties in connection with transformative business transactions in all phases of the business cycle, including\u0026nbsp;initial public offerings, innovative joint ventures and corporate financings, multiple M\u0026amp;A\u0026nbsp;\"deal of the year\" transactions\u0026nbsp;and some of the largest, most complex bankruptcies.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHis experience includes working with a wide variety of renewable and conventional\u0026nbsp;infrastructure assets, including those involving ammonia, batteries, carbon dioxide (CCS), coal, geothermal assets, hydroelectric assets, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas (LNG), lithium, natural gas, natural gas liquids, oil, pipelines, renewable diesel, renewable natural gas (RNG), renewable tax attributes and environmental credits, sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), solar resources and related technologies, transmission assets and\u0026nbsp;wind assets.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMany of his representations have included significant cross-border components. He\u0026nbsp;has extensive experience working with clients across Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Middle East.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMark also serves as co-coordinator for the pro bono program of the Houston office.\u0026nbsp; He maintains an active pro bono docket and has provided substantial pro bono representation to individuals and nonprofits in connection with federal criminal matters, immigration matters and nonprofit formation and governance matters.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Mark practiced law at\u0026nbsp;Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom LLP for more than eight years and served as a law clerk in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana for two years.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"mark-schlackman","email":"mschlackman@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eStarwood Energy Group in its acquisition from Consolidated Edison of the 102 MW Coram wind facility located in California and the 150 MW Crane solar facility located in Texas, together with related financing and operational arrangements\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFirst Solar in a variety of transactions, including the formation, initial public offering and subsequent sale of 8point3 Energy Partners, a joint venture yieldco with SunPower (the sale was selected as the Power Finance \u0026amp; Risk 2018 North America Renewables M\u0026amp;A Deal of the Year)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e8point3 Energy Partners in its $775 million term loan and revolving credit facilities\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA large technology company in its co-investment with three other multinational investors in an internet development project spanning the African continent\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSunEdison and its subsidiaries in connection with more than $2 billion in first and second lien corporate credit facilities, as well as various matters related to its Chapter 11 restructuring (one of the largest Chapter 11 cases filed in 2016)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA leading supplier of solar trackers in a variety of corporate and commercial matters, including its initial public offering, $100 million revolving credit facility and various equipment supply contracts\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePattern Energy in connection with the development and financing of the Western Spirit transmission project\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eInterGen in the sale to Actis of its 2,200 MW Mexico portfolio, including six combined-cycle gas turbine projects and a 155 MW wind project (IJGlobal 2018 Latin American M\u0026amp;A Deal of the Year and Latin Lawyer 2018 Deal of the Year - Private M\u0026amp;A)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA Korean petrochemicals company in several investments in U.S. midstream development projects\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTalen Energy Supply, a Riverstone portfolio company, in a variety of financing and corporate matters, including the Chapter 11 restructuring of its MACH Gen portfolio\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA private equity firm in its sale of several power generation assets in Africa and the Caribbean\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eEnel in the sale to General Electric of an interest in a 760 MW portfolio of wind, solar, geothermal and hydroelectric power projects and related joint ownership arrangements\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":35,"guid":"35.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":33,"guid":"33.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":29,"guid":"29.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":32,"guid":"32.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":75,"guid":"75.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Schlackman","nick_name":"Mark","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. Lance M. Africk, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana","years_held":"2011 - 2013"}],"first_name":"Mark","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[{"id":2113,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"summa cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2011-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":0,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMark Schlackman represents clients in connection with a wide variety of complex corporate and commercial\u0026nbsp;transactions involving energy and infrastructure projects.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;As an industry-focused generalist, he has broad capabilities that allow him to guide his clients through all aspects of project development, project finance, mergers and acquisitions and associated corporate and commercial transactions.\u0026nbsp; He has particular expertise handling matters involving\u0026nbsp;renewable and conventional power\u0026nbsp;as well as midstream and downstream oil and gas assets.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMark has substantial experience handling matters involving large scale development projects at both the corporate and project level.\u0026nbsp; His capabilities extend across the entire value chain to include\u0026nbsp;project development, construction, finance, joint ventures, acquisitions, dispositions, power and commodities and many other matters involving energy and infrastructure assets.\u0026nbsp; Over the course of his career, he has counseled\u0026nbsp;industry leading developers, investors, lenders and other parties in connection with transformative business transactions in all phases of the business cycle, including\u0026nbsp;initial public offerings, innovative joint ventures and corporate financings, multiple M\u0026amp;A\u0026nbsp;\"deal of the year\" transactions\u0026nbsp;and some of the largest, most complex bankruptcies.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHis experience includes working with a wide variety of renewable and conventional\u0026nbsp;infrastructure assets, including those involving ammonia, batteries, carbon dioxide (CCS), coal, geothermal assets, hydroelectric assets, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas (LNG), lithium, natural gas, natural gas liquids, oil, pipelines, renewable diesel, renewable natural gas (RNG), renewable tax attributes and environmental credits, sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), solar resources and related technologies, transmission assets and\u0026nbsp;wind assets.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMany of his representations have included significant cross-border components. He\u0026nbsp;has extensive experience working with clients across Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Middle East.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMark also serves as co-coordinator for the pro bono program of the Houston office.\u0026nbsp; He maintains an active pro bono docket and has provided substantial pro bono representation to individuals and nonprofits in connection with federal criminal matters, immigration matters and nonprofit formation and governance matters.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Mark practiced law at\u0026nbsp;Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom LLP for more than eight years and served as a law clerk in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana for two years.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eStarwood Energy Group in its acquisition from Consolidated Edison of the 102 MW Coram wind facility located in California and the 150 MW Crane solar facility located in Texas, together with related financing and operational arrangements\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFirst Solar in a variety of transactions, including the formation, initial public offering and subsequent sale of 8point3 Energy Partners, a joint venture yieldco with SunPower (the sale was selected as the Power Finance \u0026amp; Risk 2018 North America Renewables M\u0026amp;A Deal of the Year)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e8point3 Energy Partners in its $775 million term loan and revolving credit facilities\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA large technology company in its co-investment with three other multinational investors in an internet development project spanning the African continent\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSunEdison and its subsidiaries in connection with more than $2 billion in first and second lien corporate credit facilities, as well as various matters related to its Chapter 11 restructuring (one of the largest Chapter 11 cases filed in 2016)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA leading supplier of solar trackers in a variety of corporate and commercial matters, including its initial public offering, $100 million revolving credit facility and various equipment supply contracts\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePattern Energy in connection with the development and financing of the Western Spirit transmission project\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eInterGen in the sale to Actis of its 2,200 MW Mexico portfolio, including six combined-cycle gas turbine projects and a 155 MW wind project (IJGlobal 2018 Latin American M\u0026amp;A Deal of the Year and Latin Lawyer 2018 Deal of the Year - Private M\u0026amp;A)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA Korean petrochemicals company in several investments in U.S. midstream development projects\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTalen Energy Supply, a Riverstone portfolio company, in a variety of financing and corporate matters, including the Chapter 11 restructuring of its MACH Gen portfolio\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA private equity firm in its sale of several power generation assets in Africa and the Caribbean\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eEnel in the sale to General Electric of an interest in a 760 MW portfolio of wind, solar, geothermal and hydroelectric power projects and related joint ownership arrangements\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12244}]},"capability_group_id":1},"created_at":"2025-11-13T04:59:11.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-13T04:59:11.000Z","searchable_text":"Schlackman{{ FIELD }}Starwood Energy Group in its acquisition from Consolidated Edison of the 102 MW Coram wind facility located in California and the 150 MW Crane solar facility located in Texas, together with related financing and operational arrangements{{ FIELD }}First Solar in a variety of transactions, including the formation, initial public offering and subsequent sale of 8point3 Energy Partners, a joint venture yieldco with SunPower (the sale was selected as the Power Finance \u0026amp; Risk 2018 North America Renewables M\u0026amp;A Deal of the Year){{ FIELD }}8point3 Energy Partners in its $775 million term loan and revolving credit facilities{{ FIELD }}A large technology company in its co-investment with three other multinational investors in an internet development project spanning the African continent{{ FIELD }}SunEdison and its subsidiaries in connection with more than $2 billion in first and second lien corporate credit facilities, as well as various matters related to its Chapter 11 restructuring (one of the largest Chapter 11 cases filed in 2016){{ FIELD }}A leading supplier of solar trackers in a variety of corporate and commercial matters, including its initial public offering, $100 million revolving credit facility and various equipment supply contracts{{ FIELD }}Pattern Energy in connection with the development and financing of the Western Spirit transmission project{{ FIELD }}InterGen in the sale to Actis of its 2,200 MW Mexico portfolio, including six combined-cycle gas turbine projects and a 155 MW wind project (IJGlobal 2018 Latin American M\u0026amp;A Deal of the Year and Latin Lawyer 2018 Deal of the Year - Private M\u0026amp;A){{ FIELD }}A Korean petrochemicals company in several investments in U.S. midstream development projects{{ FIELD }}Talen Energy Supply, a Riverstone portfolio company, in a variety of financing and corporate matters, including the Chapter 11 restructuring of its MACH Gen portfolio{{ FIELD }}A private equity firm in its sale of several power generation assets in Africa and the Caribbean{{ FIELD }}Enel in the sale to General Electric of an interest in a 760 MW portfolio of wind, solar, geothermal and hydroelectric power projects and related joint ownership arrangements{{ FIELD }}Mark Schlackman represents clients in connection with a wide variety of complex corporate and commercial transactions involving energy and infrastructure projects.  As an industry-focused generalist, he has broad capabilities that allow him to guide his clients through all aspects of project development, project finance, mergers and acquisitions and associated corporate and commercial transactions.  He has particular expertise handling matters involving renewable and conventional power as well as midstream and downstream oil and gas assets. \nMark has substantial experience handling matters involving large scale development projects at both the corporate and project level.  His capabilities extend across the entire value chain to include project development, construction, finance, joint ventures, acquisitions, dispositions, power and commodities and many other matters involving energy and infrastructure assets.  Over the course of his career, he has counseled industry leading developers, investors, lenders and other parties in connection with transformative business transactions in all phases of the business cycle, including initial public offerings, innovative joint ventures and corporate financings, multiple M\u0026amp;A \"deal of the year\" transactions and some of the largest, most complex bankruptcies. \nHis experience includes working with a wide variety of renewable and conventional infrastructure assets, including those involving ammonia, batteries, carbon dioxide (CCS), coal, geothermal assets, hydroelectric assets, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas (LNG), lithium, natural gas, natural gas liquids, oil, pipelines, renewable diesel, renewable natural gas (RNG), renewable tax attributes and environmental credits, sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), solar resources and related technologies, transmission assets and wind assets. \nMany of his representations have included significant cross-border components. He has extensive experience working with clients across Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Middle East. \nMark also serves as co-coordinator for the pro bono program of the Houston office.  He maintains an active pro bono docket and has provided substantial pro bono representation to individuals and nonprofits in connection with federal criminal matters, immigration matters and nonprofit formation and governance matters.  \nPrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Mark practiced law at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom LLP for more than eight years and served as a law clerk in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana for two years. \n  Partner Tulane University Tulane University Law School Texas Houston Bar Association State Bar of Texas, Business Law Committee Gulf Coast Power Association Houston Pro Bono Joint Initiative, Coordinating Committee Law Clerk, Hon. Lance M. Africk, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana Starwood Energy Group in its acquisition from Consolidated Edison of the 102 MW Coram wind facility located in California and the 150 MW Crane solar facility located in Texas, together with related financing and operational arrangements First Solar in a variety of transactions, including the formation, initial public offering and subsequent sale of 8point3 Energy Partners, a joint venture yieldco with SunPower (the sale was selected as the Power Finance \u0026amp; Risk 2018 North America Renewables M\u0026amp;A Deal of the Year) 8point3 Energy Partners in its $775 million term loan and revolving credit facilities A large technology company in its co-investment with three other multinational investors in an internet development project spanning the African continent SunEdison and its subsidiaries in connection with more than $2 billion in first and second lien corporate credit facilities, as well as various matters related to its Chapter 11 restructuring (one of the largest Chapter 11 cases filed in 2016) A leading supplier of solar trackers in a variety of corporate and commercial matters, including its initial public offering, $100 million revolving credit facility and various equipment supply contracts Pattern Energy in connection with the development and financing of the Western Spirit transmission project InterGen in the sale to Actis of its 2,200 MW Mexico portfolio, including six combined-cycle gas turbine projects and a 155 MW wind project (IJGlobal 2018 Latin American M\u0026amp;A Deal of the Year and Latin Lawyer 2018 Deal of the Year - Private M\u0026amp;A) A Korean petrochemicals company in several investments in U.S. midstream development projects Talen Energy Supply, a Riverstone portfolio company, in a variety of financing and corporate matters, including the Chapter 11 restructuring of its MACH Gen portfolio A private equity firm in its sale of several power generation assets in Africa and the Caribbean Enel in the sale to General Electric of an interest in a 760 MW portfolio of wind, solar, geothermal and hydroelectric power projects and related joint ownership arrangements","searchable_name":"Mark Schlackman","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":32,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"match_score_text":"9.0","total_score":0,"last_name":"stenglein","first_name":"mike","middle_name":" ","nick_name":"mike","id":442970,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":2379,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMike Stenglein specializes in resolving complex business disputes, principally in the construction and private equity space, and splits his time between Texas and New York.\u0026nbsp; He founded and is Managing Partner of our Austin office, as well as chair of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Global Construction and Infrastructure Disputes\u0026nbsp;practice, chair of\u0026nbsp;the firm\u0026rsquo;s Contingency Fee Committee, and a member of the firm's Diversity Committee. Mike also previously served as head of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Contracts and Business Torts group as well as the firm\u0026rsquo;s ten-person Policy Committee.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith respect to construction disputes, during his 30-year career Mike has lead teams in hundreds of complex disputes in courts and arbitral tribunals around the globe. In 2023, Mike was named Law 360 Construction MVP as well as American Lawyer Litigator of the Week for the Reficar victory (discussed below). He has also been recognized as Band 1 in Chambers where he is described as \u0026ldquo;an extraordinary litigator who is highly strategic in his approach and is also excellent at tactical work\u0026rdquo; and that he is \"an extremely skilled advocate and communicator and his level of service is very high.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp; Under Mike\u0026rsquo;s leadership, King \u0026amp; Spalding was named Construction Group of the Year by Law360 in 2018, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. Mike prides himself on being responsive 24/7 and has twice been named a BTI Consulting Group Client Service All-Star.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMike represents clients in disputes involving all manner of infrastructure disputes including oil refineries, chemical plants, power generation facilities, LNG facilities, FPSOs, subway and rail failures, data centers, semiconductor manufacturing plants, wind farms, solar and battery plants, and office and retail buildings. By way of example, Mike was lead counsel for Refiner\u0026iacute;a de Cartagena (Reficar) in a dispute arising from construction of a crude oil refinery.\u0026nbsp; After a six-week hearing before the International Chamber of Commerce and our client was awarded nearly $1.3 billion in damages despite a contractual cap that appeared to limit damages to a small fraction of that amount.\u0026nbsp; Then, despite efforts by the judgement debtor in UK and Netherlands Courts to extinguish the judgment as an unsecured debt, Mike lead the team that secured important courtroom victories resulting in Reficar obtaining a package worth approximately $900 million.\u0026nbsp; In March 2024, Mike was again recognized by the American Lawyer for this achievement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMike\u0026rsquo;s focus is not limited to resolution of formal disputes.\u0026nbsp; For example, he developed the K\u0026amp;S Quarterly Audit \u0026ndash; a process designed to provide early identification of problems on construction projects that can lead to delays and cost overruns, recommend implementation steps to fix those issues, and avoid disputes.\u0026nbsp;He also regularly counsels clients on issues during the progression of construction projects, again with the aim of avoiding formal disputes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith respect to business disputes, Mike\u0026rsquo;s experience also includes resolution of complex business problems for industry leading clients, including in the private equity space.\u0026nbsp; These matters usually involve complex contract issues for clients in the energy and technology industries, including intellectual property disputes (patent and trademark).\u0026nbsp; Mike\u0026rsquo;s representative clients in this space include, Lotus Infrastructure Partners, D.E. Shaw \u0026amp; Co, D. E Shaw Renewable Investments, Capital Dynamics, Oaktree Capital Management, Arevon Asset Management, Axium Infrastructure, Macquarie Asset Management, Macquarie Capital, Ridgewood Infrastructure, and Instar Asset Management.\u0026nbsp; Mike also has significant experience with very public, high-profile mass tort litigation involving contaminated ground water allegations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to the start of his legal career, Mike worked for five years as a Certified Public Accountant with Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand.\u0026nbsp; Prior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding in 2008, Mike was a partner at Weil, Gotshal \u0026amp; Manges LLP and Dewey Ballantine LLP.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"mike-stenglein","email":"mstenglein@kslaw.com","phone":"+1 512 423 3092","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting Reficar in a dispute arising from construction of a crude oil refinery. This matter went to hearing over 6 weeks before the International Chamber of Commerce in the summer of 2021 and deals with one of the largest construction projects in South America.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Microsoft in a dispute over the construction of a data center that involves claims of cost overruns and schedule delays.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in matters involving the construction of a large semiconductor facility in Central Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute involving the construction of a multi-billion oil refinery upgrade project in Southeast Asia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute involving the construction of a desalination plant in South America.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in ICC arbitration involving the construction of an energy facility in North Africa.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in multiple disputes arising from the construction of a multi-billion dollar subway system in a major metropolitan area in Canada.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a matter involving the expansion of a semiconductor facility.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over the construction failure at a semiconductor facility that caused a power outage and resulting loss of millions of dollars of wafers that were in progress at the time of the power loss.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a power purchase agreement dispute involving a solar and battery facility in Nevada.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a construction dispute involving a solar and battery facility in California.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a construction dispute involving a solar facility in west Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over the proper price to charge for gas transmission on a pipeline that runs from Texas to the Northeast.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented several clients in MDL litigation resulting from Winter Storm Uri centering on ERCOT regulations and complex issues in the energy space.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a construction dispute involving an LNG facility in Florida.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a construction dispute involving a $4 billion petrochemical plant in Canada. This matter is governed by the ICC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute arising out of the largest public-private water supply agreement in the United States that cost nearly $3 billion to build (142 miles long).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in an ICDR arbitration involving the construction failures associated with the building of a power plant in Massachusetts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in arbitration in the London Court of International Arbitration arising from a nearly $1 billion construction project in Southern Iraq.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client \u003c/strong\u003ein AAA arbitration over construction of several power plants in Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential\u003c/strong\u003e South American company in ICC arbitration involving dispute over surplus construction materials.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e over construction of a power plant in Pennsylvania.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in construction dispute involving electrical failure that forced business disruption.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Bass Pro in contract dispute in federal court and secured settlement involving $40+ million in payments and tens of millions in additional future revenue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in arbitration over construction of hotel and retail store in Tennessee.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in dispute over hotel construction in Missouri.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over a gas processing plant in Algeria in an ICC arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over the expansion of a subway system in Vancouver.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over an oil refinery in Thailand.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Iron Mountain in the Southern District of New York in a construction dispute involving a hyper-scale data center in Frankfurt, Germany.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Vale Ventures in Delaware Chancery Court over the interpretation of limited partner rights and obligations under a MIPA.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented JV of private equity in Boston state court over pricing for power generation supplied to Boston hospitals.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the City of Denton in Dallas County state court in a dispute over the largest solar field construction project in the United States.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Halliburton in a patent infringement lawsuit with a major competitor over fracking technology that involved seven patents and more than 120 claims. Successfully resolved with no payment and receipt of license to use competitor\u0026rsquo;s technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDavid Croucher, et al. v. MidCon Corp Employee Stock Ownership Plan, et al.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Trust Company\u003c/strong\u003e in an alleged breach of ERISA fiduciary duties class action involving the valuation of tracking stock.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdelphia Communications Corp. v. John J. Rigas, Timothy J. Rigas, Michael J. Rigas, James P. Rigas, et al.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003ethe Rigas Family\u003c/strong\u003e in all facets of civil litigation in connection with Adelphia Communications Corp., including more than 60 securities fraud lawsuits, numerous RICO lawsuits and adversary proceedings in bankruptcy court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn Re Pacific Gas and Electric Company\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003ePG\u0026amp;E Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e in litigation arising out of California\u0026rsquo;s energy crisis, including trial work confirming PG\u0026amp;E\u0026rsquo;s Plan of Reorganization.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDeutsche Bank tax-related litigation: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eDeutsche Bank\u003c/strong\u003e in multiple lawsuits pending in state and federal court throughout Texas and the Southwest.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInfinite Energy, Inc. v. Econnergy Energy Company, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eGateway Energy\u003c/strong\u003e in a breach of contract action arising from a terminated merger transaction between the companies, filed in the Northern District of Florida.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMichigan South Central Power Agency v. Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc., f/k/a Constellation Power Source, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eConstellation Energy\u003c/strong\u003e in breach of contract lawsuit where the plaintiff sought to shift SECA, congestion and other charges to Constellation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOccidental Chemical Corp. v. Entergy Louisiana LLC and the Louisiana Public Service Commission\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eOccidental \u003c/strong\u003einvolving the proper methodology for calculating avoided cost payments to qualifying facilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, filed in the Middle District of Louisiana.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJD Wind et al. v. Public Utilities Commission of Texas et al.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eOccidental Permian Ltd.\u003c/strong\u003e in multiple regulatory, state and federal litigation involving the appropriate electric rates that must be paid to certain wind-generation facilities in the Texas Panhandle.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAlpharma Inc. v. Wyeth\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eAlpharma Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e in a breach of a contract and trademark infringement case to seek termination of a competitor's license to one of Alpharma's key trademarks, filed in the Southern District of New York.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eKing Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Meridian Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Intelliject, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003epatent holder\u003c/strong\u003e in Paragraph IV patent infringement lawsuit regarding auto-injector technology, filed in the District of Delaware.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCameron International v. Cooper Industries, LLC.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eCooper Industries\u003c/strong\u003e in AAA arbitration defending claims of breach of contract and other allegations arising from the creation of Cameron in 1995 via divestiture of assets from Cooper.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCooper Industries v. Wyman Gordon:\u003c/em\u003e Represented \u003cstrong\u003eCooper Industries\u003c/strong\u003e in federal court litigation arising out of disputes associated with a 1994 Stock Purchase Agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWeatherford International v. Panalpina\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eWeatherford International\u003c/strong\u003e in a lawsuit against a freight-forwarding company that failed to facilitate timely transportation of materials and equipment to Iraq.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU. S. Contractors v. Parsons/Technip\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Contractors\u003c/strong\u003e in a construction dispute before a three-person arbitration panel. U.S. Contractors received a judgment of more than $4 million, including attorney's fees. Parsons/Technip\u0026rsquo;s counterclaims of approximately $6 million were dismissed in their entirety.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLower Colorado River Authority v. Montoya Anderson Construction, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eCEMEX\u003c/strong\u003e in a lawsuit filed in Fayette County, Texas, involving a dispute over the construction of an addition to the Fayette County power plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Haliburton in several federal and state court cases alleging ground water contamination in Duncan, Oklahoma (the \u003cem\u003eOsage\u003c/em\u003e litigation). That litigation lasted more than 6 years, involved thousands of claimants, and alleged property value diminution and physical injuries. The \u003cem\u003eOsage\u003c/em\u003e cases were also very public with media appearances by Erin Brockovich, numerous television news reports, newspaper articles, and several different plaintiff firms advertising for clients.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting Bass Pro in West Virginia state court litigation involving the construction of a retail store.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting Environmental Resources Management is a Texas-based MDL proceeding that involves the alleged contamination of ground water that has allegedly caused physical injuries and property value diminution of property values. This is a very public matter with media appearance by Erin Brockovich, numerous television news reports, newspaper articles, and several different plaintiff firms advertising for clients.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Bass Pro in Delaware Chancery Court over purchase price dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003ea confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in multiple patent infringement litigations over fracking technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eE.ON v. Gamesa\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eGamesa\u003c/strong\u003e in AAA arbitration where plaintiff requested approximately $90 million in damages allegedly caused by design defect in wind turbine blades. Matter proceeded to final confidential hearing in January 2013. Excellent result achieved for client after final hearing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWindstar v. Gamesa\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eGamesa\u003c/strong\u003e in AAA arbitration initially defending allegations of delay and disruption in building a utility-grade wind farm in California. Gamesa asserted counterclaims. Matter proceeded to final hearing, and Gamesa prevailed on all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAMEC/Zachry Crushed Stone Contractors Joint Venture, et al. v. CEMEX Construction Materials Florida, LLC\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eCEMEX\u003c/strong\u003e in a lawsuit filed in Orlando state court (Business Court Division) involving a dispute over a $60 million cost overrun arising from the construction of a cement plant in Brooksville, Florida.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":234}]},"expertise":[{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":22,"guid":"22.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":104,"guid":"104.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1114,"guid":"1114.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1434,"guid":"1434.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Stenglein","nick_name":"Mike","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Mike","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2197,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"summa cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1994-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"King \u0026 Spalding Ranked Number One in International Arbitration For Fourth Year","detail":"Global Arbitration Review, 2021-2024"},{"title":"Law360 Names King \u0026 Spalding a Construction Practice Group of the Year","detail":"Law 360, 2024"},{"title":"Benchmark Litigation Again Recognizes King \u0026 Spalding as a Leading Litigation Firm","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2023"},{"title":"Law360 Recognizes Mike Stenglein and Reggie Smith as 2023 MVPs","detail":"Law 360, 2023"},{"title":"King \u0026 Spalding Earns Top-Tier Rankings in Legal 500 United States 2023 Guide","detail":"Legal 500, 2023"},{"title":"Chambers USA 2023 Recognizes 186 K\u0026S Lawyers and 84 K\u0026S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields","detail":"Chambers USA, 2023"},{"title":"Law360 Names King \u0026 Spalding a Construction Practice Group of the Year","detail":"Law 360, 2023"},{"title":"Legal 500 United States 2022 Recognizes King \u0026 Spalding Practices and Lawyers Among the Top in the Nation","detail":"Legal 500, 2022"},{"title":"Chambers USA 2022 Recognizes 188 K\u0026S Lawyers and 75 K\u0026S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields","detail":"Chambers USA, 2022"},{"title":"Benchmark Litigation Recognizes King \u0026 Spalding as a Leading Litigation Firm","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2021"},{"title":"Chambers USA 2021 Names 179 K\u0026S Lawyers and 65 K\u0026S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields","detail":"Chambers USA, 2021"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-stenglein-07796871/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":48,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMike Stenglein specializes in resolving complex business disputes, principally in the construction and private equity space, and splits his time between Texas and New York.\u0026nbsp; He founded and is Managing Partner of our Austin office, as well as chair of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Global Construction and Infrastructure Disputes\u0026nbsp;practice, chair of\u0026nbsp;the firm\u0026rsquo;s Contingency Fee Committee, and a member of the firm's Diversity Committee. Mike also previously served as head of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Contracts and Business Torts group as well as the firm\u0026rsquo;s ten-person Policy Committee.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith respect to construction disputes, during his 30-year career Mike has lead teams in hundreds of complex disputes in courts and arbitral tribunals around the globe. In 2023, Mike was named Law 360 Construction MVP as well as American Lawyer Litigator of the Week for the Reficar victory (discussed below). He has also been recognized as Band 1 in Chambers where he is described as \u0026ldquo;an extraordinary litigator who is highly strategic in his approach and is also excellent at tactical work\u0026rdquo; and that he is \"an extremely skilled advocate and communicator and his level of service is very high.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp; Under Mike\u0026rsquo;s leadership, King \u0026amp; Spalding was named Construction Group of the Year by Law360 in 2018, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. Mike prides himself on being responsive 24/7 and has twice been named a BTI Consulting Group Client Service All-Star.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMike represents clients in disputes involving all manner of infrastructure disputes including oil refineries, chemical plants, power generation facilities, LNG facilities, FPSOs, subway and rail failures, data centers, semiconductor manufacturing plants, wind farms, solar and battery plants, and office and retail buildings. By way of example, Mike was lead counsel for Refiner\u0026iacute;a de Cartagena (Reficar) in a dispute arising from construction of a crude oil refinery.\u0026nbsp; After a six-week hearing before the International Chamber of Commerce and our client was awarded nearly $1.3 billion in damages despite a contractual cap that appeared to limit damages to a small fraction of that amount.\u0026nbsp; Then, despite efforts by the judgement debtor in UK and Netherlands Courts to extinguish the judgment as an unsecured debt, Mike lead the team that secured important courtroom victories resulting in Reficar obtaining a package worth approximately $900 million.\u0026nbsp; In March 2024, Mike was again recognized by the American Lawyer for this achievement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMike\u0026rsquo;s focus is not limited to resolution of formal disputes.\u0026nbsp; For example, he developed the K\u0026amp;S Quarterly Audit \u0026ndash; a process designed to provide early identification of problems on construction projects that can lead to delays and cost overruns, recommend implementation steps to fix those issues, and avoid disputes.\u0026nbsp;He also regularly counsels clients on issues during the progression of construction projects, again with the aim of avoiding formal disputes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith respect to business disputes, Mike\u0026rsquo;s experience also includes resolution of complex business problems for industry leading clients, including in the private equity space.\u0026nbsp; These matters usually involve complex contract issues for clients in the energy and technology industries, including intellectual property disputes (patent and trademark).\u0026nbsp; Mike\u0026rsquo;s representative clients in this space include, Lotus Infrastructure Partners, D.E. Shaw \u0026amp; Co, D. E Shaw Renewable Investments, Capital Dynamics, Oaktree Capital Management, Arevon Asset Management, Axium Infrastructure, Macquarie Asset Management, Macquarie Capital, Ridgewood Infrastructure, and Instar Asset Management.\u0026nbsp; Mike also has significant experience with very public, high-profile mass tort litigation involving contaminated ground water allegations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to the start of his legal career, Mike worked for five years as a Certified Public Accountant with Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand.\u0026nbsp; Prior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding in 2008, Mike was a partner at Weil, Gotshal \u0026amp; Manges LLP and Dewey Ballantine LLP.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting Reficar in a dispute arising from construction of a crude oil refinery. This matter went to hearing over 6 weeks before the International Chamber of Commerce in the summer of 2021 and deals with one of the largest construction projects in South America.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Microsoft in a dispute over the construction of a data center that involves claims of cost overruns and schedule delays.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in matters involving the construction of a large semiconductor facility in Central Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute involving the construction of a multi-billion oil refinery upgrade project in Southeast Asia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute involving the construction of a desalination plant in South America.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in ICC arbitration involving the construction of an energy facility in North Africa.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in multiple disputes arising from the construction of a multi-billion dollar subway system in a major metropolitan area in Canada.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a matter involving the expansion of a semiconductor facility.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over the construction failure at a semiconductor facility that caused a power outage and resulting loss of millions of dollars of wafers that were in progress at the time of the power loss.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a power purchase agreement dispute involving a solar and battery facility in Nevada.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a construction dispute involving a solar and battery facility in California.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a construction dispute involving a solar facility in west Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over the proper price to charge for gas transmission on a pipeline that runs from Texas to the Northeast.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented several clients in MDL litigation resulting from Winter Storm Uri centering on ERCOT regulations and complex issues in the energy space.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a construction dispute involving an LNG facility in Florida.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a construction dispute involving a $4 billion petrochemical plant in Canada. This matter is governed by the ICC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute arising out of the largest public-private water supply agreement in the United States that cost nearly $3 billion to build (142 miles long).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in an ICDR arbitration involving the construction failures associated with the building of a power plant in Massachusetts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in arbitration in the London Court of International Arbitration arising from a nearly $1 billion construction project in Southern Iraq.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client \u003c/strong\u003ein AAA arbitration over construction of several power plants in Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential\u003c/strong\u003e South American company in ICC arbitration involving dispute over surplus construction materials.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e over construction of a power plant in Pennsylvania.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in construction dispute involving electrical failure that forced business disruption.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Bass Pro in contract dispute in federal court and secured settlement involving $40+ million in payments and tens of millions in additional future revenue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in arbitration over construction of hotel and retail store in Tennessee.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in dispute over hotel construction in Missouri.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over a gas processing plant in Algeria in an ICC arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over the expansion of a subway system in Vancouver.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over an oil refinery in Thailand.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Iron Mountain in the Southern District of New York in a construction dispute involving a hyper-scale data center in Frankfurt, Germany.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Vale Ventures in Delaware Chancery Court over the interpretation of limited partner rights and obligations under a MIPA.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented JV of private equity in Boston state court over pricing for power generation supplied to Boston hospitals.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the City of Denton in Dallas County state court in a dispute over the largest solar field construction project in the United States.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Halliburton in a patent infringement lawsuit with a major competitor over fracking technology that involved seven patents and more than 120 claims. Successfully resolved with no payment and receipt of license to use competitor\u0026rsquo;s technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDavid Croucher, et al. v. MidCon Corp Employee Stock Ownership Plan, et al.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Trust Company\u003c/strong\u003e in an alleged breach of ERISA fiduciary duties class action involving the valuation of tracking stock.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdelphia Communications Corp. v. John J. Rigas, Timothy J. Rigas, Michael J. Rigas, James P. Rigas, et al.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003ethe Rigas Family\u003c/strong\u003e in all facets of civil litigation in connection with Adelphia Communications Corp., including more than 60 securities fraud lawsuits, numerous RICO lawsuits and adversary proceedings in bankruptcy court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn Re Pacific Gas and Electric Company\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003ePG\u0026amp;E Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e in litigation arising out of California\u0026rsquo;s energy crisis, including trial work confirming PG\u0026amp;E\u0026rsquo;s Plan of Reorganization.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDeutsche Bank tax-related litigation: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eDeutsche Bank\u003c/strong\u003e in multiple lawsuits pending in state and federal court throughout Texas and the Southwest.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInfinite Energy, Inc. v. Econnergy Energy Company, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eGateway Energy\u003c/strong\u003e in a breach of contract action arising from a terminated merger transaction between the companies, filed in the Northern District of Florida.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMichigan South Central Power Agency v. Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc., f/k/a Constellation Power Source, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eConstellation Energy\u003c/strong\u003e in breach of contract lawsuit where the plaintiff sought to shift SECA, congestion and other charges to Constellation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOccidental Chemical Corp. v. Entergy Louisiana LLC and the Louisiana Public Service Commission\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eOccidental \u003c/strong\u003einvolving the proper methodology for calculating avoided cost payments to qualifying facilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, filed in the Middle District of Louisiana.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJD Wind et al. v. Public Utilities Commission of Texas et al.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eOccidental Permian Ltd.\u003c/strong\u003e in multiple regulatory, state and federal litigation involving the appropriate electric rates that must be paid to certain wind-generation facilities in the Texas Panhandle.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAlpharma Inc. v. Wyeth\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eAlpharma Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e in a breach of a contract and trademark infringement case to seek termination of a competitor's license to one of Alpharma's key trademarks, filed in the Southern District of New York.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eKing Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Meridian Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Intelliject, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003epatent holder\u003c/strong\u003e in Paragraph IV patent infringement lawsuit regarding auto-injector technology, filed in the District of Delaware.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCameron International v. Cooper Industries, LLC.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eCooper Industries\u003c/strong\u003e in AAA arbitration defending claims of breach of contract and other allegations arising from the creation of Cameron in 1995 via divestiture of assets from Cooper.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCooper Industries v. Wyman Gordon:\u003c/em\u003e Represented \u003cstrong\u003eCooper Industries\u003c/strong\u003e in federal court litigation arising out of disputes associated with a 1994 Stock Purchase Agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWeatherford International v. Panalpina\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eWeatherford International\u003c/strong\u003e in a lawsuit against a freight-forwarding company that failed to facilitate timely transportation of materials and equipment to Iraq.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU. S. Contractors v. Parsons/Technip\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Contractors\u003c/strong\u003e in a construction dispute before a three-person arbitration panel. U.S. Contractors received a judgment of more than $4 million, including attorney's fees. Parsons/Technip\u0026rsquo;s counterclaims of approximately $6 million were dismissed in their entirety.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLower Colorado River Authority v. Montoya Anderson Construction, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eCEMEX\u003c/strong\u003e in a lawsuit filed in Fayette County, Texas, involving a dispute over the construction of an addition to the Fayette County power plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Haliburton in several federal and state court cases alleging ground water contamination in Duncan, Oklahoma (the \u003cem\u003eOsage\u003c/em\u003e litigation). That litigation lasted more than 6 years, involved thousands of claimants, and alleged property value diminution and physical injuries. The \u003cem\u003eOsage\u003c/em\u003e cases were also very public with media appearances by Erin Brockovich, numerous television news reports, newspaper articles, and several different plaintiff firms advertising for clients.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting Bass Pro in West Virginia state court litigation involving the construction of a retail store.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting Environmental Resources Management is a Texas-based MDL proceeding that involves the alleged contamination of ground water that has allegedly caused physical injuries and property value diminution of property values. This is a very public matter with media appearance by Erin Brockovich, numerous television news reports, newspaper articles, and several different plaintiff firms advertising for clients.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Bass Pro in Delaware Chancery Court over purchase price dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003ea confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in multiple patent infringement litigations over fracking technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eE.ON v. Gamesa\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eGamesa\u003c/strong\u003e in AAA arbitration where plaintiff requested approximately $90 million in damages allegedly caused by design defect in wind turbine blades. Matter proceeded to final confidential hearing in January 2013. Excellent result achieved for client after final hearing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWindstar v. Gamesa\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eGamesa\u003c/strong\u003e in AAA arbitration initially defending allegations of delay and disruption in building a utility-grade wind farm in California. Gamesa asserted counterclaims. Matter proceeded to final hearing, and Gamesa prevailed on all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAMEC/Zachry Crushed Stone Contractors Joint Venture, et al. v. CEMEX Construction Materials Florida, LLC\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eCEMEX\u003c/strong\u003e in a lawsuit filed in Orlando state court (Business Court Division) involving a dispute over a $60 million cost overrun arising from the construction of a cement plant in Brooksville, Florida.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"King \u0026 Spalding Ranked Number One in International Arbitration For Fourth Year","detail":"Global Arbitration Review, 2021-2024"},{"title":"Law360 Names King \u0026 Spalding a Construction Practice Group of the Year","detail":"Law 360, 2024"},{"title":"Benchmark Litigation Again Recognizes King \u0026 Spalding as a Leading Litigation Firm","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2023"},{"title":"Law360 Recognizes Mike Stenglein and Reggie Smith as 2023 MVPs","detail":"Law 360, 2023"},{"title":"King \u0026 Spalding Earns Top-Tier Rankings in Legal 500 United States 2023 Guide","detail":"Legal 500, 2023"},{"title":"Chambers USA 2023 Recognizes 186 K\u0026S Lawyers and 84 K\u0026S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields","detail":"Chambers USA, 2023"},{"title":"Law360 Names King \u0026 Spalding a Construction Practice Group of the Year","detail":"Law 360, 2023"},{"title":"Legal 500 United States 2022 Recognizes King \u0026 Spalding Practices and Lawyers Among the Top in the Nation","detail":"Legal 500, 2022"},{"title":"Chambers USA 2022 Recognizes 188 K\u0026S Lawyers and 75 K\u0026S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields","detail":"Chambers USA, 2022"},{"title":"Benchmark Litigation Recognizes King \u0026 Spalding as a Leading Litigation Firm","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2021"},{"title":"Chambers USA 2021 Names 179 K\u0026S Lawyers and 65 K\u0026S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields","detail":"Chambers USA, 2021"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":10610}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-17T19:58:16.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-17T19:58:16.000Z","searchable_text":"Stenglein{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"King \u0026amp; Spalding Ranked Number One in International Arbitration For Fourth Year\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Global Arbitration Review, 2021-2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Law360 Names King \u0026amp; Spalding a Construction Practice Group of the Year\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law 360, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation Again Recognizes King \u0026amp; Spalding as a Leading Litigation Firm\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Law360 Recognizes Mike Stenglein and Reggie Smith as 2023 MVPs\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law 360, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"King \u0026amp; Spalding Earns Top-Tier Rankings in Legal 500 United States 2023 Guide\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2023 Recognizes 186 K\u0026amp;S Lawyers and 84 K\u0026amp;S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Law360 Names King \u0026amp; Spalding a Construction Practice Group of the Year\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law 360, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 United States 2022 Recognizes King \u0026amp; Spalding Practices and Lawyers Among the Top in the Nation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2022 Recognizes 188 K\u0026amp;S Lawyers and 75 K\u0026amp;S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation Recognizes King \u0026amp; Spalding as a Leading Litigation Firm\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2021 Names 179 K\u0026amp;S Lawyers and 65 K\u0026amp;S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}Representing Reficar in a dispute arising from construction of a crude oil refinery. This matter went to hearing over 6 weeks before the International Chamber of Commerce in the summer of 2021 and deals with one of the largest construction projects in South America.{{ FIELD }}Represented Microsoft in a dispute over the construction of a data center that involves claims of cost overruns and schedule delays.{{ FIELD }}Representing a confidential client in matters involving the construction of a large semiconductor facility in Central Texas.{{ FIELD }}Representing a confidential client in a dispute involving the construction of a multi-billion oil refinery upgrade project in Southeast Asia.{{ FIELD }}Representing a confidential client in a dispute involving the construction of a desalination plant in South America.{{ FIELD }}Representing a confidential client in ICC arbitration involving the construction of an energy facility in North Africa.{{ FIELD }}Representing a confidential client in multiple disputes arising from the construction of a multi-billion dollar subway system in a major metropolitan area in Canada.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a matter involving the expansion of a semiconductor facility.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a dispute over the construction failure at a semiconductor facility that caused a power outage and resulting loss of millions of dollars of wafers that were in progress at the time of the power loss.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a power purchase agreement dispute involving a solar and battery facility in Nevada.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a construction dispute involving a solar and battery facility in California.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a construction dispute involving a solar facility in west Texas.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a dispute over the proper price to charge for gas transmission on a pipeline that runs from Texas to the Northeast.{{ FIELD }}Represented several clients in MDL litigation resulting from Winter Storm Uri centering on ERCOT regulations and complex issues in the energy space.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a construction dispute involving an LNG facility in Florida.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a construction dispute involving a $4 billion petrochemical plant in Canada. This matter is governed by the ICC.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a dispute arising out of the largest public-private water supply agreement in the United States that cost nearly $3 billion to build (142 miles long).{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in an ICDR arbitration involving the construction failures associated with the building of a power plant in Massachusetts.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in arbitration in the London Court of International Arbitration arising from a nearly $1 billion construction project in Southern Iraq.{{ FIELD }}Representing a confidential client in AAA arbitration over construction of several power plants in Texas.{{ FIELD }}Representing a confidential South American company in ICC arbitration involving dispute over surplus construction materials.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client over construction of a power plant in Pennsylvania.{{ FIELD }}Represent a confidential client in construction dispute involving electrical failure that forced business disruption.{{ FIELD }}Represented Bass Pro in contract dispute in federal court and secured settlement involving $40+ million in payments and tens of millions in additional future revenue.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in arbitration over construction of hotel and retail store in Tennessee.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in dispute over hotel construction in Missouri.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a dispute over a gas processing plant in Algeria in an ICC arbitration.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a dispute over the expansion of a subway system in Vancouver.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a dispute over an oil refinery in Thailand.{{ FIELD }}Represented Iron Mountain in the Southern District of New York in a construction dispute involving a hyper-scale data center in Frankfurt, Germany.{{ FIELD }}Represented Vale Ventures in Delaware Chancery Court over the interpretation of limited partner rights and obligations under a MIPA.{{ FIELD }}Represented JV of private equity in Boston state court over pricing for power generation supplied to Boston hospitals.{{ FIELD }}Represented the City of Denton in Dallas County state court in a dispute over the largest solar field construction project in the United States.{{ FIELD }}Represented Halliburton in a patent infringement lawsuit with a major competitor over fracking technology that involved seven patents and more than 120 claims. Successfully resolved with no payment and receipt of license to use competitor’s technology.{{ FIELD }}David Croucher, et al. v. MidCon Corp Employee Stock Ownership Plan, et al.: Represented U.S. Trust Company in an alleged breach of ERISA fiduciary duties class action involving the valuation of tracking stock.{{ FIELD }}Adelphia Communications Corp. v. John J. Rigas, Timothy J. Rigas, Michael J. Rigas, James P. Rigas, et al.: Represented the Rigas Family in all facets of civil litigation in connection with Adelphia Communications Corp., including more than 60 securities fraud lawsuits, numerous RICO lawsuits and adversary proceedings in bankruptcy court.{{ FIELD }}In Re Pacific Gas and Electric Company: Represented PG\u0026amp;E Corporation in litigation arising out of California’s energy crisis, including trial work confirming PG\u0026amp;E’s Plan of Reorganization.{{ FIELD }}Deutsche Bank tax-related litigation: Represented Deutsche Bank in multiple lawsuits pending in state and federal court throughout Texas and the Southwest.{{ FIELD }}Infinite Energy, Inc. v. Econnergy Energy Company, Inc.: Represented Gateway Energy in a breach of contract action arising from a terminated merger transaction between the companies, filed in the Northern District of Florida.{{ FIELD }}Michigan South Central Power Agency v. Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc., f/k/a Constellation Power Source, Inc.: Represented Constellation Energy in breach of contract lawsuit where the plaintiff sought to shift SECA, congestion and other charges to Constellation.{{ FIELD }}Occidental Chemical Corp. v. Entergy Louisiana LLC and the Louisiana Public Service Commission: Represented Occidental involving the proper methodology for calculating avoided cost payments to qualifying facilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, filed in the Middle District of Louisiana.{{ FIELD }}JD Wind et al. v. Public Utilities Commission of Texas et al.: Represented Occidental Permian Ltd. in multiple regulatory, state and federal litigation involving the appropriate electric rates that must be paid to certain wind-generation facilities in the Texas Panhandle.{{ FIELD }}Alpharma Inc. v. Wyeth: Represented Alpharma Inc. in a breach of a contract and trademark infringement case to seek termination of a competitor's license to one of Alpharma's key trademarks, filed in the Southern District of New York.{{ FIELD }}King Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Meridian Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Intelliject, Inc.: Represented patent holder in Paragraph IV patent infringement lawsuit regarding auto-injector technology, filed in the District of Delaware.{{ FIELD }}Cameron International v. Cooper Industries, LLC.: Represented Cooper Industries in AAA arbitration defending claims of breach of contract and other allegations arising from the creation of Cameron in 1995 via divestiture of assets from Cooper.{{ FIELD }}Cooper Industries v. Wyman Gordon: Represented Cooper Industries in federal court litigation arising out of disputes associated with a 1994 Stock Purchase Agreement.{{ FIELD }}Weatherford International v. Panalpina: Represented Weatherford International in a lawsuit against a freight-forwarding company that failed to facilitate timely transportation of materials and equipment to Iraq.{{ FIELD }}U. S. Contractors v. Parsons/Technip: Represented U.S. Contractors in a construction dispute before a three-person arbitration panel. U.S. Contractors received a judgment of more than $4 million, including attorney's fees. Parsons/Technip’s counterclaims of approximately $6 million were dismissed in their entirety.{{ FIELD }}Lower Colorado River Authority v. Montoya Anderson Construction, Inc., et al.: Represented CEMEX in a lawsuit filed in Fayette County, Texas, involving a dispute over the construction of an addition to the Fayette County power plant.{{ FIELD }}Represented Haliburton in several federal and state court cases alleging ground water contamination in Duncan, Oklahoma (the Osage litigation). That litigation lasted more than 6 years, involved thousands of claimants, and alleged property value diminution and physical injuries. The Osage cases were also very public with media appearances by Erin Brockovich, numerous television news reports, newspaper articles, and several different plaintiff firms advertising for clients.{{ FIELD }}Representing Bass Pro in West Virginia state court litigation involving the construction of a retail store.{{ FIELD }}Representing Environmental Resources Management is a Texas-based MDL proceeding that involves the alleged contamination of ground water that has allegedly caused physical injuries and property value diminution of property values. This is a very public matter with media appearance by Erin Brockovich, numerous television news reports, newspaper articles, and several different plaintiff firms advertising for clients.{{ FIELD }}Represented Bass Pro in Delaware Chancery Court over purchase price dispute.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in multiple patent infringement litigations over fracking technology.{{ FIELD }}E.ON v. Gamesa: Represented Gamesa in AAA arbitration where plaintiff requested approximately $90 million in damages allegedly caused by design defect in wind turbine blades. Matter proceeded to final confidential hearing in January 2013. Excellent result achieved for client after final hearing.{{ FIELD }}Windstar v. Gamesa: Represented Gamesa in AAA arbitration initially defending allegations of delay and disruption in building a utility-grade wind farm in California. Gamesa asserted counterclaims. Matter proceeded to final hearing, and Gamesa prevailed on all claims.{{ FIELD }}AMEC/Zachry Crushed Stone Contractors Joint Venture, et al. v. CEMEX Construction Materials Florida, LLC: Represented CEMEX in a lawsuit filed in Orlando state court (Business Court Division) involving a dispute over a $60 million cost overrun arising from the construction of a cement plant in Brooksville, Florida.{{ FIELD }}Mike Stenglein specializes in resolving complex business disputes, principally in the construction and private equity space, and splits his time between Texas and New York.  He founded and is Managing Partner of our Austin office, as well as chair of the firm’s Global Construction and Infrastructure Disputes practice, chair of the firm’s Contingency Fee Committee, and a member of the firm's Diversity Committee. Mike also previously served as head of the firm’s Contracts and Business Torts group as well as the firm’s ten-person Policy Committee.\nWith respect to construction disputes, during his 30-year career Mike has lead teams in hundreds of complex disputes in courts and arbitral tribunals around the globe. In 2023, Mike was named Law 360 Construction MVP as well as American Lawyer Litigator of the Week for the Reficar victory (discussed below). He has also been recognized as Band 1 in Chambers where he is described as “an extraordinary litigator who is highly strategic in his approach and is also excellent at tactical work” and that he is \"an extremely skilled advocate and communicator and his level of service is very high.”  Under Mike’s leadership, King \u0026amp; Spalding was named Construction Group of the Year by Law360 in 2018, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. Mike prides himself on being responsive 24/7 and has twice been named a BTI Consulting Group Client Service All-Star.\nMike represents clients in disputes involving all manner of infrastructure disputes including oil refineries, chemical plants, power generation facilities, LNG facilities, FPSOs, subway and rail failures, data centers, semiconductor manufacturing plants, wind farms, solar and battery plants, and office and retail buildings. By way of example, Mike was lead counsel for Refinería de Cartagena (Reficar) in a dispute arising from construction of a crude oil refinery.  After a six-week hearing before the International Chamber of Commerce and our client was awarded nearly $1.3 billion in damages despite a contractual cap that appeared to limit damages to a small fraction of that amount.  Then, despite efforts by the judgement debtor in UK and Netherlands Courts to extinguish the judgment as an unsecured debt, Mike lead the team that secured important courtroom victories resulting in Reficar obtaining a package worth approximately $900 million.  In March 2024, Mike was again recognized by the American Lawyer for this achievement.\nMike’s focus is not limited to resolution of formal disputes.  For example, he developed the K\u0026amp;S Quarterly Audit – a process designed to provide early identification of problems on construction projects that can lead to delays and cost overruns, recommend implementation steps to fix those issues, and avoid disputes. He also regularly counsels clients on issues during the progression of construction projects, again with the aim of avoiding formal disputes.\nWith respect to business disputes, Mike’s experience also includes resolution of complex business problems for industry leading clients, including in the private equity space.  These matters usually involve complex contract issues for clients in the energy and technology industries, including intellectual property disputes (patent and trademark).  Mike’s representative clients in this space include, Lotus Infrastructure Partners, D.E. Shaw \u0026amp; Co, D. E Shaw Renewable Investments, Capital Dynamics, Oaktree Capital Management, Arevon Asset Management, Axium Infrastructure, Macquarie Asset Management, Macquarie Capital, Ridgewood Infrastructure, and Instar Asset Management.  Mike also has significant experience with very public, high-profile mass tort litigation involving contaminated ground water allegations.\nPrior to the start of his legal career, Mike worked for five years as a Certified Public Accountant with Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand.  Prior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding in 2008, Mike was a partner at Weil, Gotshal \u0026amp; Manges LLP and Dewey Ballantine LLP. Mike Stenglein Partner King \u0026amp; Spalding Ranked Number One in International Arbitration For Fourth Year Global Arbitration Review, 2021-2024 Law360 Names King \u0026amp; Spalding a Construction Practice Group of the Year Law 360, 2024 Benchmark Litigation Again Recognizes King \u0026amp; Spalding as a Leading Litigation Firm Benchmark Litigation, 2023 Law360 Recognizes Mike Stenglein and Reggie Smith as 2023 MVPs Law 360, 2023 King \u0026amp; Spalding Earns Top-Tier Rankings in Legal 500 United States 2023 Guide Legal 500, 2023 Chambers USA 2023 Recognizes 186 K\u0026amp;S Lawyers and 84 K\u0026amp;S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields Chambers USA, 2023 Law360 Names King \u0026amp; Spalding a Construction Practice Group of the Year Law 360, 2023 Legal 500 United States 2022 Recognizes King \u0026amp; Spalding Practices and Lawyers Among the Top in the Nation Legal 500, 2022 Chambers USA 2022 Recognizes 188 K\u0026amp;S Lawyers and 75 K\u0026amp;S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields Chambers USA, 2022 Benchmark Litigation Recognizes King \u0026amp; Spalding as a Leading Litigation Firm Benchmark Litigation, 2021 Chambers USA 2021 Names 179 K\u0026amp;S Lawyers and 65 K\u0026amp;S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields Chambers USA, 2021 University of Florida Levin College of Law University of Houston University of Houston Law Center U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida New York Texas Representing Reficar in a dispute arising from construction of a crude oil refinery. This matter went to hearing over 6 weeks before the International Chamber of Commerce in the summer of 2021 and deals with one of the largest construction projects in South America. Represented Microsoft in a dispute over the construction of a data center that involves claims of cost overruns and schedule delays. Representing a confidential client in matters involving the construction of a large semiconductor facility in Central Texas. Representing a confidential client in a dispute involving the construction of a multi-billion oil refinery upgrade project in Southeast Asia. Representing a confidential client in a dispute involving the construction of a desalination plant in South America. Representing a confidential client in ICC arbitration involving the construction of an energy facility in North Africa. Representing a confidential client in multiple disputes arising from the construction of a multi-billion dollar subway system in a major metropolitan area in Canada. Represented a confidential client in a matter involving the expansion of a semiconductor facility. Represented a confidential client in a dispute over the construction failure at a semiconductor facility that caused a power outage and resulting loss of millions of dollars of wafers that were in progress at the time of the power loss. Represented a confidential client in a power purchase agreement dispute involving a solar and battery facility in Nevada. Represented a confidential client in a construction dispute involving a solar and battery facility in California. Represented a confidential client in a construction dispute involving a solar facility in west Texas. Represented a confidential client in a dispute over the proper price to charge for gas transmission on a pipeline that runs from Texas to the Northeast. Represented several clients in MDL litigation resulting from Winter Storm Uri centering on ERCOT regulations and complex issues in the energy space. Represented a confidential client in a construction dispute involving an LNG facility in Florida. Represented a confidential client in a construction dispute involving a $4 billion petrochemical plant in Canada. This matter is governed by the ICC. Represented a confidential client in a dispute arising out of the largest public-private water supply agreement in the United States that cost nearly $3 billion to build (142 miles long). Represented a confidential client in an ICDR arbitration involving the construction failures associated with the building of a power plant in Massachusetts. Represented a confidential client in arbitration in the London Court of International Arbitration arising from a nearly $1 billion construction project in Southern Iraq. Representing a confidential client in AAA arbitration over construction of several power plants in Texas. Representing a confidential South American company in ICC arbitration involving dispute over surplus construction materials. Represented a confidential client over construction of a power plant in Pennsylvania. Represent a confidential client in construction dispute involving electrical failure that forced business disruption. Represented Bass Pro in contract dispute in federal court and secured settlement involving $40+ million in payments and tens of millions in additional future revenue. Represented a confidential client in arbitration over construction of hotel and retail store in Tennessee. Represented a confidential client in dispute over hotel construction in Missouri. Represented a confidential client in a dispute over a gas processing plant in Algeria in an ICC arbitration. Represented a confidential client in a dispute over the expansion of a subway system in Vancouver. Represented a confidential client in a dispute over an oil refinery in Thailand. Represented Iron Mountain in the Southern District of New York in a construction dispute involving a hyper-scale data center in Frankfurt, Germany. Represented Vale Ventures in Delaware Chancery Court over the interpretation of limited partner rights and obligations under a MIPA. Represented JV of private equity in Boston state court over pricing for power generation supplied to Boston hospitals. Represented the City of Denton in Dallas County state court in a dispute over the largest solar field construction project in the United States. Represented Halliburton in a patent infringement lawsuit with a major competitor over fracking technology that involved seven patents and more than 120 claims. Successfully resolved with no payment and receipt of license to use competitor’s technology. David Croucher, et al. v. MidCon Corp Employee Stock Ownership Plan, et al.: Represented U.S. Trust Company in an alleged breach of ERISA fiduciary duties class action involving the valuation of tracking stock. Adelphia Communications Corp. v. John J. Rigas, Timothy J. Rigas, Michael J. Rigas, James P. Rigas, et al.: Represented the Rigas Family in all facets of civil litigation in connection with Adelphia Communications Corp., including more than 60 securities fraud lawsuits, numerous RICO lawsuits and adversary proceedings in bankruptcy court. In Re Pacific Gas and Electric Company: Represented PG\u0026amp;E Corporation in litigation arising out of California’s energy crisis, including trial work confirming PG\u0026amp;E’s Plan of Reorganization. Deutsche Bank tax-related litigation: Represented Deutsche Bank in multiple lawsuits pending in state and federal court throughout Texas and the Southwest. Infinite Energy, Inc. v. Econnergy Energy Company, Inc.: Represented Gateway Energy in a breach of contract action arising from a terminated merger transaction between the companies, filed in the Northern District of Florida. Michigan South Central Power Agency v. Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc., f/k/a Constellation Power Source, Inc.: Represented Constellation Energy in breach of contract lawsuit where the plaintiff sought to shift SECA, congestion and other charges to Constellation. Occidental Chemical Corp. v. Entergy Louisiana LLC and the Louisiana Public Service Commission: Represented Occidental involving the proper methodology for calculating avoided cost payments to qualifying facilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, filed in the Middle District of Louisiana. JD Wind et al. v. Public Utilities Commission of Texas et al.: Represented Occidental Permian Ltd. in multiple regulatory, state and federal litigation involving the appropriate electric rates that must be paid to certain wind-generation facilities in the Texas Panhandle. Alpharma Inc. v. Wyeth: Represented Alpharma Inc. in a breach of a contract and trademark infringement case to seek termination of a competitor's license to one of Alpharma's key trademarks, filed in the Southern District of New York. King Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Meridian Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Intelliject, Inc.: Represented patent holder in Paragraph IV patent infringement lawsuit regarding auto-injector technology, filed in the District of Delaware. Cameron International v. Cooper Industries, LLC.: Represented Cooper Industries in AAA arbitration defending claims of breach of contract and other allegations arising from the creation of Cameron in 1995 via divestiture of assets from Cooper. Cooper Industries v. Wyman Gordon: Represented Cooper Industries in federal court litigation arising out of disputes associated with a 1994 Stock Purchase Agreement. Weatherford International v. Panalpina: Represented Weatherford International in a lawsuit against a freight-forwarding company that failed to facilitate timely transportation of materials and equipment to Iraq. U. S. Contractors v. Parsons/Technip: Represented U.S. Contractors in a construction dispute before a three-person arbitration panel. U.S. Contractors received a judgment of more than $4 million, including attorney's fees. Parsons/Technip’s counterclaims of approximately $6 million were dismissed in their entirety. Lower Colorado River Authority v. Montoya Anderson Construction, Inc., et al.: Represented CEMEX in a lawsuit filed in Fayette County, Texas, involving a dispute over the construction of an addition to the Fayette County power plant. Represented Haliburton in several federal and state court cases alleging ground water contamination in Duncan, Oklahoma (the Osage litigation). That litigation lasted more than 6 years, involved thousands of claimants, and alleged property value diminution and physical injuries. The Osage cases were also very public with media appearances by Erin Brockovich, numerous television news reports, newspaper articles, and several different plaintiff firms advertising for clients. Representing Bass Pro in West Virginia state court litigation involving the construction of a retail store. Representing Environmental Resources Management is a Texas-based MDL proceeding that involves the alleged contamination of ground water that has allegedly caused physical injuries and property value diminution of property values. This is a very public matter with media appearance by Erin Brockovich, numerous television news reports, newspaper articles, and several different plaintiff firms advertising for clients. Represented Bass Pro in Delaware Chancery Court over purchase price dispute. Represented a confidential client in multiple patent infringement litigations over fracking technology. E.ON v. Gamesa: Represented Gamesa in AAA arbitration where plaintiff requested approximately $90 million in damages allegedly caused by design defect in wind turbine blades. Matter proceeded to final confidential hearing in January 2013. Excellent result achieved for client after final hearing. Windstar v. Gamesa: Represented Gamesa in AAA arbitration initially defending allegations of delay and disruption in building a utility-grade wind farm in California. Gamesa asserted counterclaims. Matter proceeded to final hearing, and Gamesa prevailed on all claims. AMEC/Zachry Crushed Stone Contractors Joint Venture, et al. v. CEMEX Construction Materials Florida, LLC: Represented CEMEX in a lawsuit filed in Orlando state court (Business Court Division) involving a dispute over a $60 million cost overrun arising from the construction of a cement plant in Brooksville, Florida.","searchable_name":"Mike Stenglein","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"match_score_text":"3.0","total_score":0,"last_name":"stauber","first_name":"andrea","middle_name":" ","nick_name":"andrea","id":445735,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3461,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAndrea Stauber is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s International Disputes\u0026nbsp;practice group, based in London.\u0026nbsp;Andrea focuses on resolving complex international commercial disputes, particularly relating to high-value engineering and construction projects in the\u0026nbsp;energy,\u0026nbsp;infrastructure and mining sectors in jurisdictions around the world.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe advises both owners and contractors on a variety of major projects, including power plants, oil and gas processing facilities and pipelines, waste-to-energy plants, airports, roads and elevated highways, chemical plants, as well as wind and solar renewable energy projects.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndrea is a Solicitor Advocate and represents clients in arbitral proceedings under all major institutional rules including ICC, LCIA, SIAC, AAA, UNCITRAL and ICSID. She is also experienced in litigation, adjudication, mediation and expert determination.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to her disputes practice, Andrea provides strategic risk management and pragmatic dispute avoidance advice throughout the execution phase of projects, with a view to achieving commercial solutions in line with her clients\u0026rsquo; business needs. Where a dispute is unavoidable, Andrea works seamlessly with her clients\u0026rsquo; project and legal teams to put them in the best possible position for any subsequent proceeding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndrea had the opportunity to complete a secondment with a multi-national joint venture comprising two leading engineering and construction companies, during which she provided ongoing practical and strategic advice to project teams and management about contract administration, dispute avoidance and dispute resolution in relation to the construction of a combined-cycle power plant within a LNG facility.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndrea is ranked as an 'Up and Coming' Partner by Chambers UK in Construction: International Arbitration 2025. She is recommended by Legal 500 as a Key Lawyer for International Arbitration and Construction - Contentious, and was recognised as a Rising Star on their International Arbitration Powerlist in 2019. She is noted as a \"Future Leader\" in Arbitration by Who's Who Legal. Her clients describe her as \"\u003cem\u003eremarkable\u003c/em\u003e\" and \"\u003cem\u003ea pleasure to work with\u003c/em\u003e\", and note that she \"\u003cem\u003equickly understands and orchestrates her client's case to perfection\"\u003c/em\u003e.\u003cbr /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eAndrea is an elected member of Council for the Society of Construction Law UK, and a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (FCIArb) and the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (ACICA). She is also on the faculty of the Brunel University International Arbitration Summer School and the Delos Remote Oral Advocacy Program, where she teaches oral and written advocacy.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"andrea-stauber","email":"astauber@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international EPC contractor\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein an arbitration against a public authority relating to the construction of a Waste-to-Energy plant. The arbitration is seated in London and governed by English law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international EPC contractor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration against an oil and gas company (part-State owned) concerning delays in the construction of a gas processing plant in Northern Africa. The arbitration is seated in Paris and governed by Algerian law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration relating to disputed delay, disruption and variation claims arising from the construction of a gas processing plant and pipeline in Northern Africa. The arbitration is seated in Vienna and governed by English law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean Indian airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a SIAC arbitration against a US engine manufacturer. The arbitration is seated in Singapore and governed by English law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major oil and gas service provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;with respect to claims involving termination of a contract on grounds of force majeure arising from COVID-19 on a project in the Middle East.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major chemical company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein relation to disputed delay, variation and defect claims and entitlement to liquidated damages arising from the construction of a process plant. The amount in dispute was over USD 300 million and the contract was governed by the laws of England and Wales.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea developer of renewable energy projects\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an LCIA arbitration relating to the construction of a solar photovoltaic power plant in Mongolia. The arbitration is seated in London and governed by Mongolian law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international contractor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICSID arbitration against the State of Kuwait concerning the construction of a major infrastructure project in Kuwait.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u003cstrong\u003e international contractor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in relation to a force majeure claim under an EPC contract for the development of a power plant in Ghana.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea US-based manufacturing company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute concerning commissions due on the sale of products and related services in Oman.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor oil \u0026amp; gas equipment and services provider\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein relation to the termination of a subcontract with a drilling services provider on a project in Kuwait.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u003cstrong\u003e a major oil \u0026amp; gas equipment provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;with respect to a dispute involving the sale of drilling technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eleading international equipment supplier\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;for the power, oil and gas industry in a series of AAA arbitrations seated in New York regarding a small-sale LNG plant project in Nigeria.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea Korean contractor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an UNCITRAL arbitration arising out of disputes concerning the construction of a mine in Western Australia. The arbitration is seated in Singapore and the governing law is the law of Western Australia. The amount in dispute was over AUD 2.5 billion.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major Indian oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ead hoc\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eUNCITRAL arbitration in New Delhi against the Government of India in relation to the company\u0026rsquo;s right to cost recovery under a PSC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea U.S. engineering and construction firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a LCIA arbitration seated in London with regard to force majeure and delay claims arising from the construction of an oil processing plant in the Middle East.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international contractor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ead hoc\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;arbitration under UNCITRAL Rules involving claims for delay and disruption, variations and cost overruns arising from the construction of a gas-fired power station.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea civil infrastructure contractor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in contractual dispute resolution procedures and a subsequent arbitration against a government authority relating to the construction of a highway.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean East Asian company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a SIAC arbitration in relation to a dispute about taxation obligations in India under a consortium agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea U.S. satellite telecommunications firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration against a Philippine telecommunications company concerning satellite communications products and services for merchant ships.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":35,"guid":"35.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Stauber","nick_name":"Andrea","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Andrea","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Up and Coming Partner - Construction: International Arbitration","detail":"Chambers UK 2025 (2025-2026)"},{"title":"International Arbitration - Future Leaders (Partners)","detail":"Who's Who Legal (2024-2026)"},{"title":"Recommended for Construction (Contentious) ","detail":"Legal 500 UK (2022-2026)"},{"title":"Rising Star","detail":"Legal500 International Arbitration Powerlist 2019 (UK)"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAndrea Stauber is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s International Disputes\u0026nbsp;practice group, based in London.\u0026nbsp;Andrea focuses on resolving complex international commercial disputes, particularly relating to high-value engineering and construction projects in the\u0026nbsp;energy,\u0026nbsp;infrastructure and mining sectors in jurisdictions around the world.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe advises both owners and contractors on a variety of major projects, including power plants, oil and gas processing facilities and pipelines, waste-to-energy plants, airports, roads and elevated highways, chemical plants, as well as wind and solar renewable energy projects.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndrea is a Solicitor Advocate and represents clients in arbitral proceedings under all major institutional rules including ICC, LCIA, SIAC, AAA, UNCITRAL and ICSID. She is also experienced in litigation, adjudication, mediation and expert determination.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to her disputes practice, Andrea provides strategic risk management and pragmatic dispute avoidance advice throughout the execution phase of projects, with a view to achieving commercial solutions in line with her clients\u0026rsquo; business needs. Where a dispute is unavoidable, Andrea works seamlessly with her clients\u0026rsquo; project and legal teams to put them in the best possible position for any subsequent proceeding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndrea had the opportunity to complete a secondment with a multi-national joint venture comprising two leading engineering and construction companies, during which she provided ongoing practical and strategic advice to project teams and management about contract administration, dispute avoidance and dispute resolution in relation to the construction of a combined-cycle power plant within a LNG facility.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndrea is ranked as an 'Up and Coming' Partner by Chambers UK in Construction: International Arbitration 2025. She is recommended by Legal 500 as a Key Lawyer for International Arbitration and Construction - Contentious, and was recognised as a Rising Star on their International Arbitration Powerlist in 2019. She is noted as a \"Future Leader\" in Arbitration by Who's Who Legal. Her clients describe her as \"\u003cem\u003eremarkable\u003c/em\u003e\" and \"\u003cem\u003ea pleasure to work with\u003c/em\u003e\", and note that she \"\u003cem\u003equickly understands and orchestrates her client's case to perfection\"\u003c/em\u003e.\u003cbr /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eAndrea is an elected member of Council for the Society of Construction Law UK, and a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (FCIArb) and the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (ACICA). She is also on the faculty of the Brunel University International Arbitration Summer School and the Delos Remote Oral Advocacy Program, where she teaches oral and written advocacy.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international EPC contractor\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein an arbitration against a public authority relating to the construction of a Waste-to-Energy plant. The arbitration is seated in London and governed by English law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international EPC contractor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration against an oil and gas company (part-State owned) concerning delays in the construction of a gas processing plant in Northern Africa. The arbitration is seated in Paris and governed by Algerian law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration relating to disputed delay, disruption and variation claims arising from the construction of a gas processing plant and pipeline in Northern Africa. The arbitration is seated in Vienna and governed by English law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean Indian airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a SIAC arbitration against a US engine manufacturer. The arbitration is seated in Singapore and governed by English law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major oil and gas service provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;with respect to claims involving termination of a contract on grounds of force majeure arising from COVID-19 on a project in the Middle East.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major chemical company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein relation to disputed delay, variation and defect claims and entitlement to liquidated damages arising from the construction of a process plant. The amount in dispute was over USD 300 million and the contract was governed by the laws of England and Wales.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea developer of renewable energy projects\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an LCIA arbitration relating to the construction of a solar photovoltaic power plant in Mongolia. The arbitration is seated in London and governed by Mongolian law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international contractor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICSID arbitration against the State of Kuwait concerning the construction of a major infrastructure project in Kuwait.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u003cstrong\u003e international contractor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in relation to a force majeure claim under an EPC contract for the development of a power plant in Ghana.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea US-based manufacturing company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute concerning commissions due on the sale of products and related services in Oman.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor oil \u0026amp; gas equipment and services provider\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein relation to the termination of a subcontract with a drilling services provider on a project in Kuwait.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u003cstrong\u003e a major oil \u0026amp; gas equipment provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;with respect to a dispute involving the sale of drilling technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eleading international equipment supplier\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;for the power, oil and gas industry in a series of AAA arbitrations seated in New York regarding a small-sale LNG plant project in Nigeria.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea Korean contractor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an UNCITRAL arbitration arising out of disputes concerning the construction of a mine in Western Australia. The arbitration is seated in Singapore and the governing law is the law of Western Australia. The amount in dispute was over AUD 2.5 billion.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major Indian oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ead hoc\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eUNCITRAL arbitration in New Delhi against the Government of India in relation to the company\u0026rsquo;s right to cost recovery under a PSC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea U.S. engineering and construction firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a LCIA arbitration seated in London with regard to force majeure and delay claims arising from the construction of an oil processing plant in the Middle East.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international contractor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ead hoc\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;arbitration under UNCITRAL Rules involving claims for delay and disruption, variations and cost overruns arising from the construction of a gas-fired power station.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea civil infrastructure contractor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in contractual dispute resolution procedures and a subsequent arbitration against a government authority relating to the construction of a highway.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean East Asian company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a SIAC arbitration in relation to a dispute about taxation obligations in India under a consortium agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea U.S. satellite telecommunications firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration against a Philippine telecommunications company concerning satellite communications products and services for merchant ships.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Up and Coming Partner - Construction: International Arbitration","detail":"Chambers UK 2025 (2025-2026)"},{"title":"International Arbitration - Future Leaders (Partners)","detail":"Who's Who Legal (2024-2026)"},{"title":"Recommended for Construction (Contentious) ","detail":"Legal 500 UK (2022-2026)"},{"title":"Rising Star","detail":"Legal500 International Arbitration Powerlist 2019 (UK)"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9868},{"id":9868}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-11T19:52:08.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-11T19:52:08.000Z","searchable_text":"Stauber{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Up and Coming Partner - Construction: International Arbitration\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers UK 2025 (2025-2026)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"International Arbitration - Future Leaders (Partners)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Who's Who Legal (2024-2026)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recommended for Construction (Contentious) \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 UK (2022-2026)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Rising Star\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal500 International Arbitration Powerlist 2019 (UK)\"}{{ FIELD }}Representing an international EPC contractor in an arbitration against a public authority relating to the construction of a Waste-to-Energy plant. The arbitration is seated in London and governed by English law.{{ FIELD }}Representing an international EPC contractor in an ICC arbitration against an oil and gas company (part-State owned) concerning delays in the construction of a gas processing plant in Northern Africa. The arbitration is seated in Paris and governed by Algerian law.{{ FIELD }}Representing a major oil and gas company in an ICC arbitration relating to disputed delay, disruption and variation claims arising from the construction of a gas processing plant and pipeline in Northern Africa. The arbitration is seated in Vienna and governed by English law.{{ FIELD }}Representing an Indian airline in a SIAC arbitration against a US engine manufacturer. The arbitration is seated in Singapore and governed by English law.{{ FIELD }}Advised a major oil and gas service provider with respect to claims involving termination of a contract on grounds of force majeure arising from COVID-19 on a project in the Middle East.{{ FIELD }}Represented for a major chemical company in relation to disputed delay, variation and defect claims and entitlement to liquidated damages arising from the construction of a process plant. The amount in dispute was over USD 300 million and the contract was governed by the laws of England and Wales.{{ FIELD }}Represented a developer of renewable energy projects in an LCIA arbitration relating to the construction of a solar photovoltaic power plant in Mongolia. The arbitration is seated in London and governed by Mongolian law.{{ FIELD }}Represented an international contractor in an ICSID arbitration against the State of Kuwait concerning the construction of a major infrastructure project in Kuwait.{{ FIELD }}Advised international contractor in relation to a force majeure claim under an EPC contract for the development of a power plant in Ghana.{{ FIELD }}Represented a US-based manufacturing company in a dispute concerning commissions due on the sale of products and related services in Oman.{{ FIELD }}Advised a major oil \u0026amp; gas equipment and services provider in relation to the termination of a subcontract with a drilling services provider on a project in Kuwait.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major oil \u0026amp; gas equipment provider with respect to a dispute involving the sale of drilling technology.{{ FIELD }}Represented a leading international equipment supplier for the power, oil and gas industry in a series of AAA arbitrations seated in New York regarding a small-sale LNG plant project in Nigeria.{{ FIELD }}Represented a Korean contractor in an UNCITRAL arbitration arising out of disputes concerning the construction of a mine in Western Australia. The arbitration is seated in Singapore and the governing law is the law of Western Australia. The amount in dispute was over AUD 2.5 billion.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major Indian oil and gas company in ad hoc UNCITRAL arbitration in New Delhi against the Government of India in relation to the company’s right to cost recovery under a PSC.{{ FIELD }}Represented a U.S. engineering and construction firm in a LCIA arbitration seated in London with regard to force majeure and delay claims arising from the construction of an oil processing plant in the Middle East.{{ FIELD }}Represented an international contractor in an ad hoc arbitration under UNCITRAL Rules involving claims for delay and disruption, variations and cost overruns arising from the construction of a gas-fired power station.{{ FIELD }}Represented a civil infrastructure contractor in contractual dispute resolution procedures and a subsequent arbitration against a government authority relating to the construction of a highway.{{ FIELD }}Represented an East Asian company in a SIAC arbitration in relation to a dispute about taxation obligations in India under a consortium agreement.{{ FIELD }}Represented a U.S. satellite telecommunications firm in an ICC arbitration against a Philippine telecommunications company concerning satellite communications products and services for merchant ships.{{ FIELD }}Andrea Stauber is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding’s International Disputes practice group, based in London. Andrea focuses on resolving complex international commercial disputes, particularly relating to high-value engineering and construction projects in the energy, infrastructure and mining sectors in jurisdictions around the world.\nShe advises both owners and contractors on a variety of major projects, including power plants, oil and gas processing facilities and pipelines, waste-to-energy plants, airports, roads and elevated highways, chemical plants, as well as wind and solar renewable energy projects.\nAndrea is a Solicitor Advocate and represents clients in arbitral proceedings under all major institutional rules including ICC, LCIA, SIAC, AAA, UNCITRAL and ICSID. She is also experienced in litigation, adjudication, mediation and expert determination.\nIn addition to her disputes practice, Andrea provides strategic risk management and pragmatic dispute avoidance advice throughout the execution phase of projects, with a view to achieving commercial solutions in line with her clients’ business needs. Where a dispute is unavoidable, Andrea works seamlessly with her clients’ project and legal teams to put them in the best possible position for any subsequent proceeding.\nAndrea had the opportunity to complete a secondment with a multi-national joint venture comprising two leading engineering and construction companies, during which she provided ongoing practical and strategic advice to project teams and management about contract administration, dispute avoidance and dispute resolution in relation to the construction of a combined-cycle power plant within a LNG facility.\nAndrea is ranked as an 'Up and Coming' Partner by Chambers UK in Construction: International Arbitration 2025. She is recommended by Legal 500 as a Key Lawyer for International Arbitration and Construction - Contentious, and was recognised as a Rising Star on their International Arbitration Powerlist in 2019. She is noted as a \"Future Leader\" in Arbitration by Who's Who Legal. Her clients describe her as \"remarkable\" and \"a pleasure to work with\", and note that she \"quickly understands and orchestrates her client's case to perfection\".Andrea is an elected member of Council for the Society of Construction Law UK, and a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (FCIArb) and the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (ACICA). She is also on the faculty of the Brunel University International Arbitration Summer School and the Delos Remote Oral Advocacy Program, where she teaches oral and written advocacy. Partner Up and Coming Partner - Construction: International Arbitration Chambers UK 2025 (2025-2026) International Arbitration - Future Leaders (Partners) Who's Who Legal (2024-2026) Recommended for Construction (Contentious)  Legal 500 UK (2022-2026) Rising Star Legal500 International Arbitration Powerlist 2019 (UK) England and Wales High Court of Australia Law Society of England and Wales Society of Construction Law (Council Member; Secretary) Law Institute of Victoria Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators WPC Energy (UK Committee) Fellow of the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration Representing an international EPC contractor in an arbitration against a public authority relating to the construction of a Waste-to-Energy plant. The arbitration is seated in London and governed by English law. Representing an international EPC contractor in an ICC arbitration against an oil and gas company (part-State owned) concerning delays in the construction of a gas processing plant in Northern Africa. The arbitration is seated in Paris and governed by Algerian law. Representing a major oil and gas company in an ICC arbitration relating to disputed delay, disruption and variation claims arising from the construction of a gas processing plant and pipeline in Northern Africa. The arbitration is seated in Vienna and governed by English law. Representing an Indian airline in a SIAC arbitration against a US engine manufacturer. The arbitration is seated in Singapore and governed by English law. Advised a major oil and gas service provider with respect to claims involving termination of a contract on grounds of force majeure arising from COVID-19 on a project in the Middle East. Represented for a major chemical company in relation to disputed delay, variation and defect claims and entitlement to liquidated damages arising from the construction of a process plant. The amount in dispute was over USD 300 million and the contract was governed by the laws of England and Wales. Represented a developer of renewable energy projects in an LCIA arbitration relating to the construction of a solar photovoltaic power plant in Mongolia. The arbitration is seated in London and governed by Mongolian law. Represented an international contractor in an ICSID arbitration against the State of Kuwait concerning the construction of a major infrastructure project in Kuwait. Advised international contractor in relation to a force majeure claim under an EPC contract for the development of a power plant in Ghana. Represented a US-based manufacturing company in a dispute concerning commissions due on the sale of products and related services in Oman. Advised a major oil \u0026amp; gas equipment and services provider in relation to the termination of a subcontract with a drilling services provider on a project in Kuwait. Represented a major oil \u0026amp; gas equipment provider with respect to a dispute involving the sale of drilling technology. Represented a leading international equipment supplier for the power, oil and gas industry in a series of AAA arbitrations seated in New York regarding a small-sale LNG plant project in Nigeria. Represented a Korean contractor in an UNCITRAL arbitration arising out of disputes concerning the construction of a mine in Western Australia. The arbitration is seated in Singapore and the governing law is the law of Western Australia. The amount in dispute was over AUD 2.5 billion. Represented a major Indian oil and gas company in ad hoc UNCITRAL arbitration in New Delhi against the Government of India in relation to the company’s right to cost recovery under a PSC. Represented a U.S. engineering and construction firm in a LCIA arbitration seated in London with regard to force majeure and delay claims arising from the construction of an oil processing plant in the Middle East. Represented an international contractor in an ad hoc arbitration under UNCITRAL Rules involving claims for delay and disruption, variations and cost overruns arising from the construction of a gas-fired power station. Represented a civil infrastructure contractor in contractual dispute resolution procedures and a subsequent arbitration against a government authority relating to the construction of a highway. Represented an East Asian company in a SIAC arbitration in relation to a dispute about taxation obligations in India under a consortium agreement. Represented a U.S. satellite telecommunications firm in an ICC arbitration against a Philippine telecommunications company concerning satellite communications products and services for merchant ships.","searchable_name":"Andrea Stauber","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"match_score_text":"2.0","total_score":0,"last_name":"slovensky","first_name":"lawrence","middle_name":"a.","nick_name":"larry","id":427550,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":633,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLarry Slovensky represents companies and individuals in complex business tort and breach of contract litigation, corporate governance disputes, and legal malpractice/law firm defense matters in Georgia and across the country. He has substantial experience in trying cases before judges and\u0026nbsp;juries, and he has represented clients in business litigation matters for more than 30 years.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLarry's clients range\u0026nbsp;in size from\u0026nbsp;large publicly traded corporations, to smaller privately-held funds and portfolio companies, to individuals.\u0026nbsp; He has represented clients\u0026nbsp;in a variety of industries, including banking and financial services, construction,\u0026nbsp;consumer retail sales, healthcare, real estate, technology, and telecommunications. Larry has successfully handled corporate governance disputes between\u0026nbsp;LLC members,\u0026nbsp;post-acquisition purchase price adjustment proceedings, and independent board investigations.\u0026nbsp; In addition, he handles a wide range of other business tort, breach of contract, class action and legal malpractice lawsuits in state and federal court.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLarry spent five years earlier in his career as in-house counsel with a national Internet service provider, where he managed all of the company\u0026rsquo;s litigation, including consumer class actions, patent infringement litigation, intellectual property disputes, anti-spam litigation, consumer disputes and general commercial litigation. He also served as ethics and loss prevention counsel for his prior law firm.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLarry is the author of a chapter on Business Torts in the annually updated\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGeorgia Business Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;treatise.\u0026nbsp; He represents veterans on a pro bono basis through the Emory Law Volunteer Clinic for Veterans and the National Veterans Legal Services Program, and he oversees the firm's veterans pro bono efforts.\u0026nbsp; Larry also actively supports civic and charitable organizations in Atlanta.\u0026nbsp; He is Vice Chair of the board of directors of the Georgia Justice Project and manages our firm's participation in the Cristo Rey High School internship program.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"lawrence-slovensky","email":"lslovensky@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBusiness Litigation and Corporate Governance Disputes\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented a portfolio company of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eOaktree Capital\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with federal litigation filed against the City of Austin, Texas in W.D. Tex. relating to municipal efforts to use condemnation powers to terminate the company\u0026rsquo;s long-term contract for operation of the South Terminal at the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport and related state proceedings ultimately resulting in a $88 million settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented multi-family real estate company\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eResia\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein asserting multi-million dollar tortious interference and breach of contract claims in the Superior of Fulton County, Georgia\u0026rsquo;s Business Court arising from a failed commercial real estate purchase transaction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented an affiliate of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTruist Bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in asserting multi-million dollar tort and contract-based claims in M.D. Fla. arising out of an equipment sale and lease-back transaction involving mobile solar generators.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGlobal Payments Direct, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a successful appeal to the Georgia Court of Appeals overturning a $135 million jury verdict rendered in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon declaratory judgment and an attorney's fee award for\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ecommercial real estate private equity fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a Delaware Chancery Court expedited proceeding in an intra-LLC dispute over management of a major hotel and convention center renovation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon final summary judgment for private equity infrastructure fund\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Highstar Capital IV, LP\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand its officers in a long-running lawsuit in the Superior Court of Fulton County\u0026rsquo;s Business Court in which the plaintiff sought a multi-million dollar punitive damages award arising from the fund's $470 million acquisition of a portfolio company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a jury trial in the Superior Court of Fulton County on behalf of a portfolio company of a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eprivate equity fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;sued by a developer over a property line dispute in connection with the acquisition of a multimillion-dollar student housing development; affirmed on appeal by the Georgia Court of Appeals.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a bench trial in a case filed by\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGeorgia municipality\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in litigation relating to a long-term $40 million water supply agreement; obtained an order affirming the validity of the underlying agreement, affirmance by the Georgia Court of Appeals, and denial of petition for\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ecertiorari\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;by the Georgia Supreme Court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a multimillion-dollar award for\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003epublicly traded corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a purchase price escrow dispute with former shareholders of an acquired telecommunications company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSunTrust Bank\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand an individual broker in defense of a $100 million claim before a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel arising from sale of preferred securities to state chartered banks.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePrepared an independent counsel report for\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003especial litigation committee\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of a corporate board\u0026nbsp;on responding to shareholder demands for institution of breach of fiduciary duty litigation against directors relating to prior corporate acquisitions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted an independent investigation for\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eboard of a publicly traded pharmaceutical corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in response to demands from two board members for review of prior corporate transactions; issued a substantial report to the board, which was unanimously accepted by the board, including by the dissenting board members.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003esoftware purchaser\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in litigation against a software development company in the Superior Court of DeKalb County and obtained a jury verdict awarding all damages sought.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLegal Malpractice and Professional Liability Defense\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWon final summary judgment for\u0026nbsp;an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAM Law 100 law firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a N.D. Ga. lawsuit brought by a receiver alleging malpractice arising from a Georgia regional bank failure.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAM Law 100 law firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and an individually-named lawyer\u0026nbsp;in defense of RICO and business tort claims in E.D. Pa. asserted against the law firm by a third party relating to a client's activities and obtained dismissal with prejudice of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAM 100 law firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in breach of fiduciary duty and malpractice litigation in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, Georgia arising from the firm\u0026rsquo;s prior representation of a closely-held corporation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003enational law firm and individually named lawyers\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defense of legal malpractice claims asserted by receiver on behalf of creditors of former regional bank client.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eregional law firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with favorable resolution of legal malpractice claims asserted by a bankruptcy trustee on behalf of the estate of the firm\u0026rsquo;s former real estate developer client.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;an\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Atlanta-based law firm\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein connection with favorable resolution of contribution and malpractice claims arising from damages awarded against a former client for fraud in a prior lawsuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eindividual Georgia lawyers\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in fee arbitration matters and responses to bar grievances before the State Bar of Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eClass Action Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003enational court reporting company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defense of multiple statewide consumer class actions relating to billing practices, resulting in two orders denying class certification under California and Florida consumer protection statutes and voluntary dismissals of all related cases. See\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn Re: Motions to Certify Classes Against Court Reporting Firms\u003c/em\u003e, 715 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (aff\u0026rsquo;d by 11th Cir.);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eColapinto v. Esquire Deposition Services, LLC\u003c/em\u003e, 2011 WL 913251 (C.D. Cal. 2011).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003etelecommunications company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defense of a class action lawsuit under California\u0026rsquo;s call-recording statue and obtained less-than-cost-of-defense settlement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003enational Internet service provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defense of consumer class action relating to billing practices and related false advertising claims; obtained order compelling arbitration and subsequent favorable settlement and dismissal of claims.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003enational Internet service provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defense of nationwide class action relating to early termination fees; obtained order dismissing damages claims based on voluntary payment doctrine.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ehealthcare insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defense of multiple consumer and public interest class actions challenging company\u0026rsquo;s conversion from nonprofit to for-profit status.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":178}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":18,"guid":"18.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":33,"guid":"33.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":762,"guid":"762.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1231,"guid":"1231.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1270,"guid":"1270.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Slovensky","nick_name":"Larry","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Lawrence","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"A.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Author of “Georgia Business Torts” chapter in Georgia Business Litigation 2024 treatise","detail":"ALM/Law.com"},{"title":"2023 Georgia Best Lawyer’s list for Legal Malpractice Law","detail":"Georgia's Best Lawyers"},{"title":"Peer Rated AV® Preeminent™","detail":"Martindale-Hubbell"},{"title":"2015 Burton Award for Distinguished Legal Writing","detail":"\"Interlocutory Appeal of Class Certification Decisions Under Rule 23(f)”"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/larryslovensky/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLarry Slovensky represents companies and individuals in complex business tort and breach of contract litigation, corporate governance disputes, and legal malpractice/law firm defense matters in Georgia and across the country. He has substantial experience in trying cases before judges and\u0026nbsp;juries, and he has represented clients in business litigation matters for more than 30 years.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLarry's clients range\u0026nbsp;in size from\u0026nbsp;large publicly traded corporations, to smaller privately-held funds and portfolio companies, to individuals.\u0026nbsp; He has represented clients\u0026nbsp;in a variety of industries, including banking and financial services, construction,\u0026nbsp;consumer retail sales, healthcare, real estate, technology, and telecommunications. Larry has successfully handled corporate governance disputes between\u0026nbsp;LLC members,\u0026nbsp;post-acquisition purchase price adjustment proceedings, and independent board investigations.\u0026nbsp; In addition, he handles a wide range of other business tort, breach of contract, class action and legal malpractice lawsuits in state and federal court.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLarry spent five years earlier in his career as in-house counsel with a national Internet service provider, where he managed all of the company\u0026rsquo;s litigation, including consumer class actions, patent infringement litigation, intellectual property disputes, anti-spam litigation, consumer disputes and general commercial litigation. He also served as ethics and loss prevention counsel for his prior law firm.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLarry is the author of a chapter on Business Torts in the annually updated\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGeorgia Business Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;treatise.\u0026nbsp; He represents veterans on a pro bono basis through the Emory Law Volunteer Clinic for Veterans and the National Veterans Legal Services Program, and he oversees the firm's veterans pro bono efforts.\u0026nbsp; Larry also actively supports civic and charitable organizations in Atlanta.\u0026nbsp; He is Vice Chair of the board of directors of the Georgia Justice Project and manages our firm's participation in the Cristo Rey High School internship program.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBusiness Litigation and Corporate Governance Disputes\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented a portfolio company of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eOaktree Capital\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with federal litigation filed against the City of Austin, Texas in W.D. Tex. relating to municipal efforts to use condemnation powers to terminate the company\u0026rsquo;s long-term contract for operation of the South Terminal at the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport and related state proceedings ultimately resulting in a $88 million settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented multi-family real estate company\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eResia\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein asserting multi-million dollar tortious interference and breach of contract claims in the Superior of Fulton County, Georgia\u0026rsquo;s Business Court arising from a failed commercial real estate purchase transaction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented an affiliate of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTruist Bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in asserting multi-million dollar tort and contract-based claims in M.D. Fla. arising out of an equipment sale and lease-back transaction involving mobile solar generators.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGlobal Payments Direct, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a successful appeal to the Georgia Court of Appeals overturning a $135 million jury verdict rendered in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon declaratory judgment and an attorney's fee award for\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ecommercial real estate private equity fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a Delaware Chancery Court expedited proceeding in an intra-LLC dispute over management of a major hotel and convention center renovation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon final summary judgment for private equity infrastructure fund\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Highstar Capital IV, LP\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand its officers in a long-running lawsuit in the Superior Court of Fulton County\u0026rsquo;s Business Court in which the plaintiff sought a multi-million dollar punitive damages award arising from the fund's $470 million acquisition of a portfolio company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a jury trial in the Superior Court of Fulton County on behalf of a portfolio company of a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eprivate equity fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;sued by a developer over a property line dispute in connection with the acquisition of a multimillion-dollar student housing development; affirmed on appeal by the Georgia Court of Appeals.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a bench trial in a case filed by\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGeorgia municipality\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in litigation relating to a long-term $40 million water supply agreement; obtained an order affirming the validity of the underlying agreement, affirmance by the Georgia Court of Appeals, and denial of petition for\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ecertiorari\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;by the Georgia Supreme Court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a multimillion-dollar award for\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003epublicly traded corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a purchase price escrow dispute with former shareholders of an acquired telecommunications company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSunTrust Bank\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand an individual broker in defense of a $100 million claim before a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel arising from sale of preferred securities to state chartered banks.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePrepared an independent counsel report for\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003especial litigation committee\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of a corporate board\u0026nbsp;on responding to shareholder demands for institution of breach of fiduciary duty litigation against directors relating to prior corporate acquisitions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted an independent investigation for\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eboard of a publicly traded pharmaceutical corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in response to demands from two board members for review of prior corporate transactions; issued a substantial report to the board, which was unanimously accepted by the board, including by the dissenting board members.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003esoftware purchaser\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in litigation against a software development company in the Superior Court of DeKalb County and obtained a jury verdict awarding all damages sought.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLegal Malpractice and Professional Liability Defense\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWon final summary judgment for\u0026nbsp;an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAM Law 100 law firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a N.D. Ga. lawsuit brought by a receiver alleging malpractice arising from a Georgia regional bank failure.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAM Law 100 law firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and an individually-named lawyer\u0026nbsp;in defense of RICO and business tort claims in E.D. Pa. asserted against the law firm by a third party relating to a client's activities and obtained dismissal with prejudice of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAM 100 law firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in breach of fiduciary duty and malpractice litigation in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, Georgia arising from the firm\u0026rsquo;s prior representation of a closely-held corporation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003enational law firm and individually named lawyers\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defense of legal malpractice claims asserted by receiver on behalf of creditors of former regional bank client.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eregional law firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with favorable resolution of legal malpractice claims asserted by a bankruptcy trustee on behalf of the estate of the firm\u0026rsquo;s former real estate developer client.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;an\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Atlanta-based law firm\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein connection with favorable resolution of contribution and malpractice claims arising from damages awarded against a former client for fraud in a prior lawsuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eindividual Georgia lawyers\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in fee arbitration matters and responses to bar grievances before the State Bar of Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eClass Action Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003enational court reporting company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defense of multiple statewide consumer class actions relating to billing practices, resulting in two orders denying class certification under California and Florida consumer protection statutes and voluntary dismissals of all related cases. See\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn Re: Motions to Certify Classes Against Court Reporting Firms\u003c/em\u003e, 715 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (aff\u0026rsquo;d by 11th Cir.);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eColapinto v. Esquire Deposition Services, LLC\u003c/em\u003e, 2011 WL 913251 (C.D. Cal. 2011).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003etelecommunications company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defense of a class action lawsuit under California\u0026rsquo;s call-recording statue and obtained less-than-cost-of-defense settlement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003enational Internet service provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defense of consumer class action relating to billing practices and related false advertising claims; obtained order compelling arbitration and subsequent favorable settlement and dismissal of claims.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003enational Internet service provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defense of nationwide class action relating to early termination fees; obtained order dismissing damages claims based on voluntary payment doctrine.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ehealthcare insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defense of multiple consumer and public interest class actions challenging company\u0026rsquo;s conversion from nonprofit to for-profit status.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Author of “Georgia Business Torts” chapter in Georgia Business Litigation 2024 treatise","detail":"ALM/Law.com"},{"title":"2023 Georgia Best Lawyer’s list for Legal Malpractice Law","detail":"Georgia's Best Lawyers"},{"title":"Peer Rated AV® Preeminent™","detail":"Martindale-Hubbell"},{"title":"2015 Burton Award for Distinguished Legal Writing","detail":"\"Interlocutory Appeal of Class Certification Decisions Under Rule 23(f)”"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":10517}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T05:02:00.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T05:02:00.000Z","searchable_text":"Slovensky{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Author of “Georgia Business Torts” chapter in Georgia Business Litigation 2024 treatise\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"ALM/Law.com\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"2023 Georgia Best Lawyer’s list for Legal Malpractice Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Georgia's Best Lawyers\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Peer Rated AV® Preeminent™\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Martindale-Hubbell\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"2015 Burton Award for Distinguished Legal Writing\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Interlocutory Appeal of Class Certification Decisions Under Rule 23(f)”\"}{{ FIELD }}Business Litigation and Corporate Governance Disputes\nRepresented a portfolio company of Oaktree Capital in connection with federal litigation filed against the City of Austin, Texas in W.D. Tex. relating to municipal efforts to use condemnation powers to terminate the company’s long-term contract for operation of the South Terminal at the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport and related state proceedings ultimately resulting in a $88 million settlement.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented multi-family real estate company Resia in asserting multi-million dollar tortious interference and breach of contract claims in the Superior of Fulton County, Georgia’s Business Court arising from a failed commercial real estate purchase transaction.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented an affiliate of Truist Bank in asserting multi-million dollar tort and contract-based claims in M.D. Fla. arising out of an equipment sale and lease-back transaction involving mobile solar generators.{{ FIELD }}Represented Global Payments Direct, Inc. in a successful appeal to the Georgia Court of Appeals overturning a $135 million jury verdict rendered in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, Georgia.{{ FIELD }}Won declaratory judgment and an attorney's fee award for a commercial real estate private equity fund in a Delaware Chancery Court expedited proceeding in an intra-LLC dispute over management of a major hotel and convention center renovation.{{ FIELD }}Won final summary judgment for private equity infrastructure fund Highstar Capital IV, LP and its officers in a long-running lawsuit in the Superior Court of Fulton County’s Business Court in which the plaintiff sought a multi-million dollar punitive damages award arising from the fund's $470 million acquisition of a portfolio company.{{ FIELD }}Won a jury trial in the Superior Court of Fulton County on behalf of a portfolio company of a private equity fund sued by a developer over a property line dispute in connection with the acquisition of a multimillion-dollar student housing development; affirmed on appeal by the Georgia Court of Appeals.{{ FIELD }}Won a bench trial in a case filed by a Georgia municipality in litigation relating to a long-term $40 million water supply agreement; obtained an order affirming the validity of the underlying agreement, affirmance by the Georgia Court of Appeals, and denial of petition for certiorari by the Georgia Supreme Court.{{ FIELD }}Obtained a multimillion-dollar award for a publicly traded corporation in a purchase price escrow dispute with former shareholders of an acquired telecommunications company.{{ FIELD }}Represented SunTrust Bank and an individual broker in defense of a $100 million claim before a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel arising from sale of preferred securities to state chartered banks.{{ FIELD }}Prepared an independent counsel report for a special litigation committee of a corporate board on responding to shareholder demands for institution of breach of fiduciary duty litigation against directors relating to prior corporate acquisitions.{{ FIELD }}Conducted an independent investigation for the board of a publicly traded pharmaceutical corporation in response to demands from two board members for review of prior corporate transactions; issued a substantial report to the board, which was unanimously accepted by the board, including by the dissenting board members.{{ FIELD }}Represented a software purchaser in litigation against a software development company in the Superior Court of DeKalb County and obtained a jury verdict awarding all damages sought.{{ FIELD }}Legal Malpractice and Professional Liability Defense\nWon final summary judgment for an AM Law 100 law firm in a N.D. Ga. lawsuit brought by a receiver alleging malpractice arising from a Georgia regional bank failure.\nRepresented an AM Law 100 law firm and an individually-named lawyer in defense of RICO and business tort claims in E.D. Pa. asserted against the law firm by a third party relating to a client's activities and obtained dismissal with prejudice of all claims.\nRepresented an AM 100 law firm in breach of fiduciary duty and malpractice litigation in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, Georgia arising from the firm’s prior representation of a closely-held corporation.\nRepresented a national law firm and individually named lawyers in defense of legal malpractice claims asserted by receiver on behalf of creditors of former regional bank client.\nRepresented a regional law firm in connection with favorable resolution of legal malpractice claims asserted by a bankruptcy trustee on behalf of the estate of the firm’s former real estate developer client.\nRepresented an Atlanta-based law firm in connection with favorable resolution of contribution and malpractice claims arising from damages awarded against a former client for fraud in a prior lawsuit.\nRepresented individual Georgia lawyers in fee arbitration matters and responses to bar grievances before the State Bar of Georgia.{{ FIELD }}Class Action Litigation\nRepresented a national court reporting company in defense of multiple statewide consumer class actions relating to billing practices, resulting in two orders denying class certification under California and Florida consumer protection statutes and voluntary dismissals of all related cases. See In Re: Motions to Certify Classes Against Court Reporting Firms, 715 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (aff’d by 11th Cir.); Colapinto v. Esquire Deposition Services, LLC, 2011 WL 913251 (C.D. Cal. 2011).\nRepresented a telecommunications company in defense of a class action lawsuit under California’s call-recording statue and obtained less-than-cost-of-defense settlement.\nRepresented a national Internet service provider in defense of consumer class action relating to billing practices and related false advertising claims; obtained order compelling arbitration and subsequent favorable settlement and dismissal of claims.\nRepresented a national Internet service provider in defense of nationwide class action relating to early termination fees; obtained order dismissing damages claims based on voluntary payment doctrine.\nRepresented a healthcare insurance company in defense of multiple consumer and public interest class actions challenging company’s conversion from nonprofit to for-profit status.{{ FIELD }}Larry Slovensky represents companies and individuals in complex business tort and breach of contract litigation, corporate governance disputes, and legal malpractice/law firm defense matters in Georgia and across the country. He has substantial experience in trying cases before judges and juries, and he has represented clients in business litigation matters for more than 30 years.\nLarry's clients range in size from large publicly traded corporations, to smaller privately-held funds and portfolio companies, to individuals.  He has represented clients in a variety of industries, including banking and financial services, construction, consumer retail sales, healthcare, real estate, technology, and telecommunications. Larry has successfully handled corporate governance disputes between LLC members, post-acquisition purchase price adjustment proceedings, and independent board investigations.  In addition, he handles a wide range of other business tort, breach of contract, class action and legal malpractice lawsuits in state and federal court.\nLarry spent five years earlier in his career as in-house counsel with a national Internet service provider, where he managed all of the company’s litigation, including consumer class actions, patent infringement litigation, intellectual property disputes, anti-spam litigation, consumer disputes and general commercial litigation. He also served as ethics and loss prevention counsel for his prior law firm.\nLarry is the author of a chapter on Business Torts in the annually updated Georgia Business Litigation treatise.  He represents veterans on a pro bono basis through the Emory Law Volunteer Clinic for Veterans and the National Veterans Legal Services Program, and he oversees the firm's veterans pro bono efforts.  Larry also actively supports civic and charitable organizations in Atlanta.  He is Vice Chair of the board of directors of the Georgia Justice Project and manages our firm's participation in the Cristo Rey High School internship program. Lawrence A. Slovensky Partner Author of “Georgia Business Torts” chapter in Georgia Business Litigation 2024 treatise ALM/Law.com 2023 Georgia Best Lawyer’s list for Legal Malpractice Law Georgia's Best Lawyers Peer Rated AV® Preeminent™ Martindale-Hubbell 2015 Burton Award for Distinguished Legal Writing \"Interlocutory Appeal of Class Certification Decisions Under Rule 23(f)” University of South Carolina  University of Chicago University of Chicago Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Georgia Court of Appeals of Georgia Supreme Court of Georgia Business Litigation and Corporate Governance Disputes\nRepresented a portfolio company of Oaktree Capital in connection with federal litigation filed against the City of Austin, Texas in W.D. Tex. relating to municipal efforts to use condemnation powers to terminate the company’s long-term contract for operation of the South Terminal at the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport and related state proceedings ultimately resulting in a $88 million settlement. Successfully represented multi-family real estate company Resia in asserting multi-million dollar tortious interference and breach of contract claims in the Superior of Fulton County, Georgia’s Business Court arising from a failed commercial real estate purchase transaction. Successfully represented an affiliate of Truist Bank in asserting multi-million dollar tort and contract-based claims in M.D. Fla. arising out of an equipment sale and lease-back transaction involving mobile solar generators. Represented Global Payments Direct, Inc. in a successful appeal to the Georgia Court of Appeals overturning a $135 million jury verdict rendered in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, Georgia. Won declaratory judgment and an attorney's fee award for a commercial real estate private equity fund in a Delaware Chancery Court expedited proceeding in an intra-LLC dispute over management of a major hotel and convention center renovation. Won final summary judgment for private equity infrastructure fund Highstar Capital IV, LP and its officers in a long-running lawsuit in the Superior Court of Fulton County’s Business Court in which the plaintiff sought a multi-million dollar punitive damages award arising from the fund's $470 million acquisition of a portfolio company. Won a jury trial in the Superior Court of Fulton County on behalf of a portfolio company of a private equity fund sued by a developer over a property line dispute in connection with the acquisition of a multimillion-dollar student housing development; affirmed on appeal by the Georgia Court of Appeals. Won a bench trial in a case filed by a Georgia municipality in litigation relating to a long-term $40 million water supply agreement; obtained an order affirming the validity of the underlying agreement, affirmance by the Georgia Court of Appeals, and denial of petition for certiorari by the Georgia Supreme Court. Obtained a multimillion-dollar award for a publicly traded corporation in a purchase price escrow dispute with former shareholders of an acquired telecommunications company. Represented SunTrust Bank and an individual broker in defense of a $100 million claim before a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel arising from sale of preferred securities to state chartered banks. Prepared an independent counsel report for a special litigation committee of a corporate board on responding to shareholder demands for institution of breach of fiduciary duty litigation against directors relating to prior corporate acquisitions. Conducted an independent investigation for the board of a publicly traded pharmaceutical corporation in response to demands from two board members for review of prior corporate transactions; issued a substantial report to the board, which was unanimously accepted by the board, including by the dissenting board members. Represented a software purchaser in litigation against a software development company in the Superior Court of DeKalb County and obtained a jury verdict awarding all damages sought. Legal Malpractice and Professional Liability Defense\nWon final summary judgment for an AM Law 100 law firm in a N.D. Ga. lawsuit brought by a receiver alleging malpractice arising from a Georgia regional bank failure.\nRepresented an AM Law 100 law firm and an individually-named lawyer in defense of RICO and business tort claims in E.D. Pa. asserted against the law firm by a third party relating to a client's activities and obtained dismissal with prejudice of all claims.\nRepresented an AM 100 law firm in breach of fiduciary duty and malpractice litigation in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, Georgia arising from the firm’s prior representation of a closely-held corporation.\nRepresented a national law firm and individually named lawyers in defense of legal malpractice claims asserted by receiver on behalf of creditors of former regional bank client.\nRepresented a regional law firm in connection with favorable resolution of legal malpractice claims asserted by a bankruptcy trustee on behalf of the estate of the firm’s former real estate developer client.\nRepresented an Atlanta-based law firm in connection with favorable resolution of contribution and malpractice claims arising from damages awarded against a former client for fraud in a prior lawsuit.\nRepresented individual Georgia lawyers in fee arbitration matters and responses to bar grievances before the State Bar of Georgia. Class Action Litigation\nRepresented a national court reporting company in defense of multiple statewide consumer class actions relating to billing practices, resulting in two orders denying class certification under California and Florida consumer protection statutes and voluntary dismissals of all related cases. See In Re: Motions to Certify Classes Against Court Reporting Firms, 715 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (aff’d by 11th Cir.); Colapinto v. Esquire Deposition Services, LLC, 2011 WL 913251 (C.D. Cal. 2011).\nRepresented a telecommunications company in defense of a class action lawsuit under California’s call-recording statue and obtained less-than-cost-of-defense settlement.\nRepresented a national Internet service provider in defense of consumer class action relating to billing practices and related false advertising claims; obtained order compelling arbitration and subsequent favorable settlement and dismissal of claims.\nRepresented a national Internet service provider in defense of nationwide class action relating to early termination fees; obtained order dismissing damages claims based on voluntary payment doctrine.\nRepresented a healthcare insurance company in defense of multiple consumer and public interest class actions challenging company’s conversion from nonprofit to for-profit status.","searchable_name":"Lawrence A. Slovensky (Larry)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":35,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"match_score_text":"2.0","total_score":0,"last_name":"stroman","first_name":"cynthia am","middle_name":" ","nick_name":"cynthia","id":442379,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":926,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eCynthia Stroman focuses on environmental, health and safety issues in administrative matters, transactions and litigation. A partner in our Environmental practice, Cynthia advises clients in matters concerning the risk, transportation and management of chemical substances in industrial and consumer products, as well as environmental, health and safety issues arising in transactional or energy project matters.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith scientific training and experience as a project manager and environmental engineer, Cynthia brings a unique perspective to her client work on environmental issues. She represents companies in environmentally sensitive industries with administrative proceedings, litigation and transactions involving environmental law.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCynthia frequently advises manufacturers and related companies on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Hazardous Materials Regulations, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and similar state and non-U.S. regulatory regimes concerning the risk, transportation and management of chemical substances throughout the supply chain.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCynthia also assists project proponents, investors and lenders in navigating EHS issues in transactions or the project authorization process, particularly concerning the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act and other NEPA-related statutes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDrawing on her background, Cynthia also helps clients to address complex scientific issues in litigation and administrative matters concerning risk assessment for, and exposure to, a range of hazardous substances, including polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS), metals, criteria pollutants, solvents, radioactive materials, and chlorinated and aromatic hydrocarbons.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCynthia has been named a Washington, D.C. Super Lawyer by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;magazine, and also has been cited by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;for her work on environmental transactional and regulatory matters.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"cynthia-am-stroman","email":"cstroman@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eAssisting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eproduct manufacturers and importers\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;with TSCA compliance and enforcement matters, including Section 6 risk evaluations under the Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCounseling\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emanufacturers and distributors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on FIFRA pesticide registration requirements, exemptions, and emerging pathogen claims for antimicrobial disinfectants, treated articles, and cleaning products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emanufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eand importers\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eon TSCA significant new use rules (SNURs), new chemicals submittals, import/export certifications, reporting and enforcement issues under the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) program, coordinating multiple submissions of product assessment studies to EPA under TSCA section 8(e), and counseling on applicability of protections for confidential business information (CBI).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCounseling\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emultinational clients\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eon materials compliance management system design and auditing, and product stewardship program management.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCounseling\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eproduct manufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on warnings and \u0026ldquo;no significant risk level\u0026rdquo; requirements under California\u0026rsquo;s Proposition 65, advising companies regarding private party enforcement, and assessing adequacy of Proposition 65 support documentation for proposed listing of chemicals as carcinogens or reproductive hazards.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eclients nationwide\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the safe transportation of hazardous materials (\u0026ldquo;hazmat\u0026rdquo;) across all modes, including highway, rail, aviation, marine and pipeline, under the Hazardous Materials and Pipeline Safety regulations of the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), as well as related international transportation of dangerous goods regimes (IATA, IMDG).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003edevelopers or other project participants\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on NEPA, Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act and other environmental, health and safety (EHS) considerations associated with natural gas projects, petrochemical facilities, LNG terminals, renewable energy facilities and pipelines.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAssisting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eclients\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;with EHS issues in domestic and international transactions, including those involving natural gas production and transportation, LNG, petrochemicals, shale oil and gas, liquids terminals, chemicals, electrical power generation, as well as wind, solar, storage and other renewable energy assets.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eclients\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on PHMSA regulation of pipelines, including reactivation and abandonment, product changes, classification of hazardous liquids, and incident regulation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCounseling\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eclients\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the regulatory status of potentially hazardous materials, including specific packaging and labeling requirements, under RCRA, DOT, OSHA and GHS and other international regimes, including EHS issues applicable to both hazardous and non-hazardous materials.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eProviding strategic advice on\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eEHS regulation of offshore facilities,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;particularly concerning the intersection of EHS statutes and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting and advising\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003estakeholders\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein Magnuson-Stevens Act, NEPA, and other administrative proceedings regarding fisheries, protected species and related issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWorking with\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eclients\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on hazardous and solid waste management issues, including negotiating remediation contract provisions; assessing hazardous waste liability for product residuals, recyclables, and other materials; and evaluating waste management compliance and product stewardship programs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePreparing\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eexpert witnesses\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a number of scientific disciplines, including emissions testing and modeling, analytical chemistry, toxicology, epidemiology, industrial hygiene, hazard communications, product warnings, process engineering and chemistry; and preparing scientific and regulatory content in cases involving alleged exposures to PFAS, arsenic, beryllium, manganese, benzene, radioactive materials (including NORM), criteria pollutants, silica, PCBs, dioxins, furans, solvents, chlorinated hydrocarbons and various other substances.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDeveloping successful\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eDaubert\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;challenges\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;to testimony of plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; experts, achieving exclusion or narrowing of such experts\u0026rsquo; testimony; and preparing trial cross-examination of plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; experts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWorking with\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003escientific experts\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on human health and ecological risk assessments in administrative proceedings and litigation, including developing and evaluating risk assessments, product stewardship strategies and scientific manuscripts in anticipation of litigation or regulatory proceedings.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":141}]},"expertise":[{"id":71,"guid":"71.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":35,"guid":"35.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1206,"guid":"1206.smart_tags","index":2,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":127,"guid":"127.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":984,"guid":"984.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1508,"guid":"1508.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Stroman","nick_name":"Cynthia","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. Emilio M. Garza, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit","years_held":"1994 -1995"}],"first_name":"Cynthia AM","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Washington, D.C. Super Lawyer","detail":"Super Lawyers"},{"title":"Environmental Transactional","detail":"Legal 500"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eCynthia Stroman focuses on environmental, health and safety issues in administrative matters, transactions and litigation. A partner in our Environmental practice, Cynthia advises clients in matters concerning the risk, transportation and management of chemical substances in industrial and consumer products, as well as environmental, health and safety issues arising in transactional or energy project matters.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith scientific training and experience as a project manager and environmental engineer, Cynthia brings a unique perspective to her client work on environmental issues. She represents companies in environmentally sensitive industries with administrative proceedings, litigation and transactions involving environmental law.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCynthia frequently advises manufacturers and related companies on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Hazardous Materials Regulations, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and similar state and non-U.S. regulatory regimes concerning the risk, transportation and management of chemical substances throughout the supply chain.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCynthia also assists project proponents, investors and lenders in navigating EHS issues in transactions or the project authorization process, particularly concerning the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act and other NEPA-related statutes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDrawing on her background, Cynthia also helps clients to address complex scientific issues in litigation and administrative matters concerning risk assessment for, and exposure to, a range of hazardous substances, including polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS), metals, criteria pollutants, solvents, radioactive materials, and chlorinated and aromatic hydrocarbons.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCynthia has been named a Washington, D.C. Super Lawyer by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;magazine, and also has been cited by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;for her work on environmental transactional and regulatory matters.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eAssisting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eproduct manufacturers and importers\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;with TSCA compliance and enforcement matters, including Section 6 risk evaluations under the Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCounseling\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emanufacturers and distributors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on FIFRA pesticide registration requirements, exemptions, and emerging pathogen claims for antimicrobial disinfectants, treated articles, and cleaning products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emanufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eand importers\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eon TSCA significant new use rules (SNURs), new chemicals submittals, import/export certifications, reporting and enforcement issues under the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) program, coordinating multiple submissions of product assessment studies to EPA under TSCA section 8(e), and counseling on applicability of protections for confidential business information (CBI).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCounseling\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emultinational clients\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eon materials compliance management system design and auditing, and product stewardship program management.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCounseling\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eproduct manufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on warnings and \u0026ldquo;no significant risk level\u0026rdquo; requirements under California\u0026rsquo;s Proposition 65, advising companies regarding private party enforcement, and assessing adequacy of Proposition 65 support documentation for proposed listing of chemicals as carcinogens or reproductive hazards.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eclients nationwide\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the safe transportation of hazardous materials (\u0026ldquo;hazmat\u0026rdquo;) across all modes, including highway, rail, aviation, marine and pipeline, under the Hazardous Materials and Pipeline Safety regulations of the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), as well as related international transportation of dangerous goods regimes (IATA, IMDG).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003edevelopers or other project participants\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on NEPA, Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act and other environmental, health and safety (EHS) considerations associated with natural gas projects, petrochemical facilities, LNG terminals, renewable energy facilities and pipelines.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAssisting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eclients\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;with EHS issues in domestic and international transactions, including those involving natural gas production and transportation, LNG, petrochemicals, shale oil and gas, liquids terminals, chemicals, electrical power generation, as well as wind, solar, storage and other renewable energy assets.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eclients\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on PHMSA regulation of pipelines, including reactivation and abandonment, product changes, classification of hazardous liquids, and incident regulation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCounseling\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eclients\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the regulatory status of potentially hazardous materials, including specific packaging and labeling requirements, under RCRA, DOT, OSHA and GHS and other international regimes, including EHS issues applicable to both hazardous and non-hazardous materials.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eProviding strategic advice on\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eEHS regulation of offshore facilities,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;particularly concerning the intersection of EHS statutes and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting and advising\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003estakeholders\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein Magnuson-Stevens Act, NEPA, and other administrative proceedings regarding fisheries, protected species and related issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWorking with\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eclients\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on hazardous and solid waste management issues, including negotiating remediation contract provisions; assessing hazardous waste liability for product residuals, recyclables, and other materials; and evaluating waste management compliance and product stewardship programs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePreparing\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eexpert witnesses\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a number of scientific disciplines, including emissions testing and modeling, analytical chemistry, toxicology, epidemiology, industrial hygiene, hazard communications, product warnings, process engineering and chemistry; and preparing scientific and regulatory content in cases involving alleged exposures to PFAS, arsenic, beryllium, manganese, benzene, radioactive materials (including NORM), criteria pollutants, silica, PCBs, dioxins, furans, solvents, chlorinated hydrocarbons and various other substances.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDeveloping successful\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eDaubert\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;challenges\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;to testimony of plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; experts, achieving exclusion or narrowing of such experts\u0026rsquo; testimony; and preparing trial cross-examination of plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; experts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWorking with\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003escientific experts\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on human health and ecological risk assessments in administrative proceedings and litigation, including developing and evaluating risk assessments, product stewardship strategies and scientific manuscripts in anticipation of litigation or regulatory proceedings.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Washington, D.C. Super Lawyer","detail":"Super Lawyers"},{"title":"Environmental Transactional","detail":"Legal 500"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":1213}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:52.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:52.000Z","searchable_text":"Stroman{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Washington, D.C. Super Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Environmental Transactional\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500\"}{{ FIELD }}Assisting product manufacturers and importers with TSCA compliance and enforcement matters, including Section 6 risk evaluations under the Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act.{{ FIELD }}Counseling manufacturers and distributors on FIFRA pesticide registration requirements, exemptions, and emerging pathogen claims for antimicrobial disinfectants, treated articles, and cleaning products.{{ FIELD }}Advising manufacturers and importers on TSCA significant new use rules (SNURs), new chemicals submittals, import/export certifications, reporting and enforcement issues under the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) program, coordinating multiple submissions of product assessment studies to EPA under TSCA section 8(e), and counseling on applicability of protections for confidential business information (CBI).{{ FIELD }}Counseling multinational clients on materials compliance management system design and auditing, and product stewardship program management.{{ FIELD }}Counseling product manufacturers on warnings and “no significant risk level” requirements under California’s Proposition 65, advising companies regarding private party enforcement, and assessing adequacy of Proposition 65 support documentation for proposed listing of chemicals as carcinogens or reproductive hazards.{{ FIELD }}Advising clients nationwide on the safe transportation of hazardous materials (“hazmat”) across all modes, including highway, rail, aviation, marine and pipeline, under the Hazardous Materials and Pipeline Safety regulations of the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), as well as related international transportation of dangerous goods regimes (IATA, IMDG).{{ FIELD }}Advising developers or other project participants on NEPA, Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act and other environmental, health and safety (EHS) considerations associated with natural gas projects, petrochemical facilities, LNG terminals, renewable energy facilities and pipelines.{{ FIELD }}Assisting clients with EHS issues in domestic and international transactions, including those involving natural gas production and transportation, LNG, petrochemicals, shale oil and gas, liquids terminals, chemicals, electrical power generation, as well as wind, solar, storage and other renewable energy assets.{{ FIELD }}Advising clients on PHMSA regulation of pipelines, including reactivation and abandonment, product changes, classification of hazardous liquids, and incident regulation.{{ FIELD }}Counseling clients on the regulatory status of potentially hazardous materials, including specific packaging and labeling requirements, under RCRA, DOT, OSHA and GHS and other international regimes, including EHS issues applicable to both hazardous and non-hazardous materials.{{ FIELD }}Providing strategic advice on EHS regulation of offshore facilities, particularly concerning the intersection of EHS statutes and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.{{ FIELD }}Representing and advising stakeholders in Magnuson-Stevens Act, NEPA, and other administrative proceedings regarding fisheries, protected species and related issues.{{ FIELD }}Working with clients on hazardous and solid waste management issues, including negotiating remediation contract provisions; assessing hazardous waste liability for product residuals, recyclables, and other materials; and evaluating waste management compliance and product stewardship programs.{{ FIELD }}Preparing expert witnesses in a number of scientific disciplines, including emissions testing and modeling, analytical chemistry, toxicology, epidemiology, industrial hygiene, hazard communications, product warnings, process engineering and chemistry; and preparing scientific and regulatory content in cases involving alleged exposures to PFAS, arsenic, beryllium, manganese, benzene, radioactive materials (including NORM), criteria pollutants, silica, PCBs, dioxins, furans, solvents, chlorinated hydrocarbons and various other substances.{{ FIELD }}Developing successful Daubert challenges to testimony of plaintiffs’ experts, achieving exclusion or narrowing of such experts’ testimony; and preparing trial cross-examination of plaintiffs’ experts.{{ FIELD }}Working with scientific experts on human health and ecological risk assessments in administrative proceedings and litigation, including developing and evaluating risk assessments, product stewardship strategies and scientific manuscripts in anticipation of litigation or regulatory proceedings.{{ FIELD }}Cynthia Stroman focuses on environmental, health and safety issues in administrative matters, transactions and litigation. A partner in our Environmental practice, Cynthia advises clients in matters concerning the risk, transportation and management of chemical substances in industrial and consumer products, as well as environmental, health and safety issues arising in transactional or energy project matters.\nWith scientific training and experience as a project manager and environmental engineer, Cynthia brings a unique perspective to her client work on environmental issues. She represents companies in environmentally sensitive industries with administrative proceedings, litigation and transactions involving environmental law.\nCynthia frequently advises manufacturers and related companies on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Hazardous Materials Regulations, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and similar state and non-U.S. regulatory regimes concerning the risk, transportation and management of chemical substances throughout the supply chain.\nCynthia also assists project proponents, investors and lenders in navigating EHS issues in transactions or the project authorization process, particularly concerning the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act and other NEPA-related statutes.\nDrawing on her background, Cynthia also helps clients to address complex scientific issues in litigation and administrative matters concerning risk assessment for, and exposure to, a range of hazardous substances, including polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS), metals, criteria pollutants, solvents, radioactive materials, and chlorinated and aromatic hydrocarbons.\nCynthia has been named a Washington, D.C. Super Lawyer by Super Lawyers magazine, and also has been cited by Legal 500 for her work on environmental transactional and regulatory matters. Cynthia AM Stroman Partner Washington, D.C. Super Lawyer Super Lawyers Environmental Transactional Legal 500 Cornell University Cornell Law School University of Michigan University of Michigan Law School District of Columbia Maryland Texas American Bar Association District of Columbia Bar Association State Bar of Texas (Environmental \u0026amp; Natural Resources Section) Maryland State Bar Association Law Clerk, Hon. Emilio M. Garza, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Assisting product manufacturers and importers with TSCA compliance and enforcement matters, including Section 6 risk evaluations under the Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. Counseling manufacturers and distributors on FIFRA pesticide registration requirements, exemptions, and emerging pathogen claims for antimicrobial disinfectants, treated articles, and cleaning products. Advising manufacturers and importers on TSCA significant new use rules (SNURs), new chemicals submittals, import/export certifications, reporting and enforcement issues under the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) program, coordinating multiple submissions of product assessment studies to EPA under TSCA section 8(e), and counseling on applicability of protections for confidential business information (CBI). Counseling multinational clients on materials compliance management system design and auditing, and product stewardship program management. Counseling product manufacturers on warnings and “no significant risk level” requirements under California’s Proposition 65, advising companies regarding private party enforcement, and assessing adequacy of Proposition 65 support documentation for proposed listing of chemicals as carcinogens or reproductive hazards. Advising clients nationwide on the safe transportation of hazardous materials (“hazmat”) across all modes, including highway, rail, aviation, marine and pipeline, under the Hazardous Materials and Pipeline Safety regulations of the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), as well as related international transportation of dangerous goods regimes (IATA, IMDG). Advising developers or other project participants on NEPA, Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act and other environmental, health and safety (EHS) considerations associated with natural gas projects, petrochemical facilities, LNG terminals, renewable energy facilities and pipelines. Assisting clients with EHS issues in domestic and international transactions, including those involving natural gas production and transportation, LNG, petrochemicals, shale oil and gas, liquids terminals, chemicals, electrical power generation, as well as wind, solar, storage and other renewable energy assets. Advising clients on PHMSA regulation of pipelines, including reactivation and abandonment, product changes, classification of hazardous liquids, and incident regulation. Counseling clients on the regulatory status of potentially hazardous materials, including specific packaging and labeling requirements, under RCRA, DOT, OSHA and GHS and other international regimes, including EHS issues applicable to both hazardous and non-hazardous materials. Providing strategic advice on EHS regulation of offshore facilities, particularly concerning the intersection of EHS statutes and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. Representing and advising stakeholders in Magnuson-Stevens Act, NEPA, and other administrative proceedings regarding fisheries, protected species and related issues. Working with clients on hazardous and solid waste management issues, including negotiating remediation contract provisions; assessing hazardous waste liability for product residuals, recyclables, and other materials; and evaluating waste management compliance and product stewardship programs. Preparing expert witnesses in a number of scientific disciplines, including emissions testing and modeling, analytical chemistry, toxicology, epidemiology, industrial hygiene, hazard communications, product warnings, process engineering and chemistry; and preparing scientific and regulatory content in cases involving alleged exposures to PFAS, arsenic, beryllium, manganese, benzene, radioactive materials (including NORM), criteria pollutants, silica, PCBs, dioxins, furans, solvents, chlorinated hydrocarbons and various other substances. Developing successful Daubert challenges to testimony of plaintiffs’ experts, achieving exclusion or narrowing of such experts’ testimony; and preparing trial cross-examination of plaintiffs’ experts. Working with scientific experts on human health and ecological risk assessments in administrative proceedings and litigation, including developing and evaluating risk assessments, product stewardship strategies and scientific manuscripts in anticipation of litigation or regulatory proceedings.","searchable_name":"Cynthia AM Stroman (Cynthia)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null}]}}